Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

BAC3–11 Aircraft

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the proposal for a BAC3–11 aircraft.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology what reply he has sent to the British Aircraft Corporation on the proposals for BAC3–11 aircraft.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Discussions between my staff and the British Aircraft Corporation about its proposal for the BAC3–11 are continuing.

Mr. Marten: I recognise the great care which the Minister has to exercise in these cases, but he will realise the anxiety of many of us that this has been going on for rather a long time, and that many are afraid that we might miss the market. Can the right hon. Gentleman be more explicit about the date when he perhaps hopes to arrive at a decision?

Mr. Benn: It has been discussed for a long time, but the proposals themselves came forward only recently. This is a very good example of partnership between Government and industry, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting us in this. There is no risk of missing the market, but we need to consider this against very strict economic criteria.

Mr. Dalyell: Does not my right hon. Friend find it rather odd that, in circum-

stances like this, the Conservative Party should seem to disavow any kind of continuing dialogue or partnership between Government and industry?

Mr. Benn: It is a curious coincidence that on the day after the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), in which he said that the Government should move out of industry, we have a further appeal from his hon. Friend for Government money—[HON. MEMBERS: "Assistance."]—to be made available for this private enterprise aircraft. I shall be interested to know the view of the Opposition.

Sir K. Joseph: If the right hon. Gentleman undertakes to read my speech in full—I shall send it to him—he will realise that it referred to the small sector, but a very important one, of British industry, of which the Government are clients. Will he accept that it is wrong for the Government to interpret the whole of British industry as being in the same state as about 10 per cent. of British industry of which the Government are clients?

Mr. Benn: The Government are not clients for the BAC3–11. The airlines are clients, and after about five years of deafening silence the right hon. Gentleman ought to consult his colleagues before he makes weekend speeches like that one.

Investment Incentives

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Technology what investigation he has made into the effects of present investment incentives on the distribution of capital and labour intensive industrial development inside and outside development areas; and if he will publish the results.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. Eric Varley): As explained to the House on 16th October, the study we are making of the effectiveness of the investment grant scheme will assist an understanding of these effects. The question of publication will be considered when the study is completed.—[Vol. 788, c. 124.]

Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern at the fact that there are no means by which the country can know what value for


money it is getting from Government expenditure in this field? As unemployment in each of the development areas is now higher than it was at the end of 1966, has not the time come, not simply for an interdepartmental inquiry, but for a full-scale independent inquiry into this matter?

Mr. Varley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has really understood the changes which have taken place in the employment position in some of the developing areas. There has been a rapid rundown in the coal industry, and in some of the other traditional industries, but there is no evidence to show that over a period investment grants would have cost more than the previous system of investment allowances operated under the Conservative Party.

Mr. Ford: Has my hon. Friend had his attention drawn to an article by Malcolm Crawford, in yesterday's Sunday Times, where it is clearly indicated that Conservative policy on investment incentives is still in a somewhat confused state?

Mr. Varley: I saw that report, and entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It shows that the House must know a lot more from hon. Gentlemen opposite about what they will do with investment grants if they ever get the opportunity.

Mr. Ridley: As there are 300,000 fewer people employed in the development areas now than there were in 1965, do the Government really think that they are getting value for money for their regional policies?

Mr. Varley: I am absolutely convinced that had it not been for investment grants the unemployment position in the regions would have been much worse than it is today.

Manufacturing Industry and Distributive Trades (Investment)

Mr. Maker: asked the Minister of Technology if he will give, for each of the first three quarters of 1969, his estimate of the value at constant 1963 prices of investment in manufacturing industries and in the distributive trades, respectively.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Alan Williams): The following is the information: for manufacturing industry, £306 million, £343 million and £371 million;

for the distributive trades, £85 million. £82 million and £85 million.

Mr. Blaker: Will the Minister confirm that those figures mean that, at an annual rate, investment in these fields is now running at more than £400,000 less than the national plan targets?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in so far as investment is a top priority, top priority has had to be given to investment in manufacturing industry for export purposes.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the Minister aware that the O.E.C.D. Report says that capital investment in British manufacturing industry is about half the rate of that of our competitors in Western Europe? Is not this a terrible condemnation of the Government's economic policy?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member will know that this is a situation which has existed for a considerable time. He will see from the Order Paper that there is a later Question dealing with this matter.

Manufacturing Industry (Machinery)

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Technology what study he has made of the age of machinery in use in British manufacturing industry.

Mr. Alan Williams: This has been covered in a number of individual industrial studies carried out or sponsored by the Department.

Mr. Speed: Does the Minister consider that the present investment incentives have materially increased the rate at which this machinery and equipment has been written off?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a substantial upturn in the rate of investment, and we consider that this is highly desirable. On the other hand, we equally recognise that we want, so far as we can, to reduce the average age of machinery in industry. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite found exactly the same problem when they were in office.

Manufacturing Industries (Investment)

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Technology if he will give in constant


1963 prices the amount by which he estimates annual investment in manufacturing industry has increased between 1965 and 1969.

Mr. Alan Williams: About £130 million.

Mr. Speed: Is the Minister satisfied that this is sufficient to provide the extra capacity that we need both for exports and for import saving?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be aware—I made the point myself at Question Time last week—that the investment levels currently indicated are at least compatible with, and somewhat ahead of, those comtemplated in "The Task Ahead".

Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that if industrial investment had grown at the rate envisaged in the National Plan of 7 per cent., it would have been £335 million more last year than it actually was? What has happened to planning now?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the figures I gave were of an increase of £130 million over two years. During the last two years flat the party opposite was in office, the figure fell by £300 million.

Mr. Molloy: On the argument of investment allowances versus investment grants, can my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the article in yesterday's Sunday Times not only spoke of the confusion of the Opposition's case, but cast serious doubt on their claim that investment allowances were less costly?

Mr. Williams: Certainly, that would seem to be compatible with the evidence which we have. There would be no real saving to the Treasury from the Opposition's scheme. In view of the enthusiasm displayed by hon. Members opposite for cost-effective analysis of our present scheme, it is remarkable that they never bothered to carry out any analysis of their own. What it comes down to is that they prefer to go back to a system of sub rosa subsidy.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Technology by how much he estimates that investment in manufacturing industries during 1970 will exceed

that in 1969 in actual terms and at constant 1963 prices, respectively.

Mr. Alan Williams: Manufacturers' forecasts given in the latest Investment Intentions Inquiry indicated a rise of about 10 per cent. at constant (1963) prices; information at current prices is not available.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister entirely satisfied with the overall control of investment in the economy? The Minister of Technology seems to be responsible for manufacturing investment and the President of the Board of Trade for investment in the distributive and service industries. Who in the Government is responsible for overall investment, and what is he doing about it?

Mr. Williams: Of course, the Treasury has overall control of the economy, and within that overall control other Departments take certain sectional areas of control. It has to be divided in some way and this seems to be an appropriate form of division.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Technology if he will give for the latest available date the percentage of gross national product devoted to investment in manufacturing industries in the United Kingdom compared with the United States of America, Germany and Japan, from information available to him from international sources.

Mr. Alan Williams: Investment in manufacturing and construction industries as a percentage of gross national product at current market prices in 1967 was: United Kingdom 4·0 per cent; United States of America, 3·3 per cent.; and West Germany, 5·8 per cent. The nearest comparable figure for Japan was 9·8 per cent.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: If Japan and Germany are investing at such a much higher rate than we are, how can our manufacturing industry be expected to meet that competition in the 1970s with the equipment of the 1950s and 1960s? What are the Government doing about it?

Mr. Williams: This is a situation which prevailed during the 1950s and the early 1960s, when hon. Members opposite were in office, and they were not very


successful in dealing with it. Rather than criticise the upturn which has taken place in the level of investment, they should surely now be welcoming any measure that will close the gap.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is there not a direct relationship between the level of Government expenditure and investment in manufacturing industry, and is not investment at current prices in both Germany and Japan twice what it is in this country? Is not their level of Government expenditure considerably lower?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member will know that there are divers factors which contribute to the differences between different countries, in particular the stage at which they have arrived in their industrialisation. The hon. Member has taken one variable and has tried to make it the key factor. It certainly is not.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asking for still more millions of Government money?

Motor Car Industry

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Technology what forecast he has made of the production and the registration of new cars in 1970.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Harold Lever): There are many uncertainties, but we expect increases compared with last year.

Mr. Baker: Will nothing check the complacency of the Minister and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the state of the British car industry? Why cannot hire-purchase restrictions be raised this afternoon, and why do the interests of this great industry have to be subject to the whims of the electoral timetable of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Lever: The industry is not subjected to the whims of either the Chancellor or my right hon. Friend the Minister, nor am I able to guarantee that the emotional reaction of either will be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. He has asked for an estimate. We are satisfied that there should be some increase in the coming year.

Mr. Howie: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that during the last year, while the motor car industry has been complaining about the fall in the home market, it has not even been able to hold that part of the home market which was its own and that foreign car competitors have been able to make substantial inroads into the British market? What can my right hon. Friend do to help the car industry to fight off this foreign competition?

Mr. Lever: The home motor industry has to face international competition and it is disappointing that such inroads were made last year. This is a matter for the industry. I am sure that it is aware of the need to be competitive.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a further statement concerning motor car production for home and export markets.

Mr. Benn: Total production of motor cars in the first 11 months—forty-eight weeks—of 1969 was 1,569,028. On a weekly average basis this was 62 per cent. lower than in the corresponding months of 1968—forty-seven weeks—a 14 per cent. fall in home market production being partly offset by a 3 per cent. rise in export production.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that home production of motor cars is now at the lowest level since 1962 and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the then Chancellor, when confronted with this situation in 1962, dropped purchase tax dramatically, from 45 per cent. to 25 per cent., on 5th November, 1962? Would he not recommend the present Chancellor to take similar dramatic action to prevent widespread unemployment in my constituency and elsewhere among motor car workers?

Mr. Benn: On the latter point, there are more people working in the motor industry, and were in 1969, than in previous years and there less short time. The hon. Gentleman's recollection of history is a bit selective, because among other consequences of the policies pursued then we had a huge deficit in 1962.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a very serious situation? If he is not able to


persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to relax total hire-purchase restrictions for the moment, would be investigate the possibility of a relaxation of hire-purchase restrictions on second-hand cars, where the bulk of the log jam is in home sales?

Mr. Benn: We have looked at the secondhand car proposition and the representations made to us, about which statements have been made in the House. I would urge my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen opposite not to adopt an alarmist note here. We have been in very close contact with the industry and we understand each other's position. We will continue to watch this. I would not accept the recommendations made by either the hon. Gentleman or my hon. Friend as representing the right remedy.

Mr. Maudling: Will the right hon. Gentleman not underestimate the importance of this matter? Is he aware that while our production has been falling, in other competing countries home production has been rising and, more important still, investment as a result of high profitability has been going up much faster than in this country? Is he further aware that, because of this, our competitive position is being eroded, which is very serious?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman was in at the very beginning of the problem we have had to deal with, namely correcting the very substantial deficit, which has involved a restriction on the home market. It is no good appearing at this stage as if he had not left us the legacy with which the Government have to deal.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern among West Midlands car workers at the fact that imports of foreign cars are rising and that these are adding to the deficit difficulties we have to face? At a time when the home market is depressed, is he aware that they feel, rightly, that we should not be importing 10½ per cent. of our total? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Benn: There are two answers to my hon. Friend. One is that imported cm are operating against exactly the same background of domestic credit re-

striction as home-produced cars. Secondly, the percentage of cars imported into the United Kingdom is still very much lower than say, in the case of Germany, which has a very flourishing car industry.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept that if his Government had acted more sensitively in 1964 and 1965 they would not have had to impose the savage stop in 1966, which has led to the present problem?

Mr. Benn: This is not an occasion to go over history, but if the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to take the measures necessary in the summer of 1964 this would never have arisen.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister of Technology when he will publish the National Economic Development Council's report on the motor manufacturing industry.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Ernest A. Davies): Publication of this report is a matter for the National Economic Development Office. I understand that it will probably be published early in February.

Mr. C. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the report has been substantially leaked this morning already in The Times Business News? Is he further aware that many people are sick and tired of the motor industry being used as regulator for the economy as a whole; and that it simply will not be able to hold the export lead which it has secured over the last few months if it does not secure a larger share of the home market? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to do something about it?

Dr. Davies: In the second part of his supplementary question my hon. Friend seems to be going into substance which may well be covered in the report. I would therefore ask him to await an opportunity to study that report. As to his comment on the Press, I am sure that he and hon. Members will be glad to see whether or not that was an accurate


newspaper report when they have an opportunity to study the report.

Mr. Dudley Smith: When will the Government learn that a flourishing export market can be sustained only by a sound home market?

Dr. Davies: Again, this is a matter which I think the hon. Member expects to find covered by the report. I would ask him to await the publication of the report so that he can study what it says on the subject.

Mr. Howie: Since Press comment on this report has been going on now for some weeks, leading to a fairly widespread expectation of relaxation of the restrictions on the home market, would it not be better for the Government to make these relaxations sooner rather than later?

Dr. Davies: Again, I think that my hon. Friend is anticipating what he hopes to find in the report. I think that if we are to discuss the report in the House we should wait until it has been made available to all hon. Members.

Mr. David Price: In view of the considerable speculation there is about the contents of the report—even if it is known—would the hon. Gentleman make representations to his superiors that the time has come for a statement by the Government?

Dr. Davies: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I can only say that we expect this report to be published in the very near future.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now institute an inquiry into the cost effectiveness of the regional employment premium.

Mr. Varley: In association with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, we are considering what form any such inquiry might take.

Mr. Hall-Davis: If no such inquiry has taken place to date, on what was the decision based that it was right to drop the selective employment premium while retaining the regional employment

premium? Was this based simply on hunch?

Mr. Varley: No. The House was informed when the Local Employment Bill was before it and during the Committee stage, in which, I understand, the hon. Member took part, the full reasons for this.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an acute shortage of skilled labour in the development areas, particularly in the shipyards? What is the point of subsidising labour when it is in short supply?

Mr. Varley: That supplementary question does not arise out of the original Question. As to the shortage of labour, however, it is true that in certain selected industries in the development areas there is a shortage, but, broadly speaking, the regional employment premium has assisted employment prospects.

Beagle Aircraft Limited

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Minister of Technology the total public investment in Beagle Aircraft Limited to date; and the total loss made by the company to date.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Neil Carmichael): Total Government expenditure in connection with the present company, viz. Beagle Aircraft Ltd., which was formed by Her Majesty's Government in July, 1968, is £2,659,000. This includes the cost of acquisition of the assets of the previous company from Pressed Steel Fisher Ltd. The draft accounts of the company for the period ended 31st March, 1969, indicate a trading loss of £1·1 million for the eight-month period.

Mr. Shaw: Would not the hon. Gentleman now agree that the original estimate of the sum needed to make this project viable was very large indeed? With the gift of hindsight, is it not now clear that the original owners of Beagle were right in their conclusion not to carry the matter any further?

Mr. Carmichael: My right hon. Friend dealt with this very fully in his statement. He said that, while we hoped that the company would be viable, when the new board examined the possibilities of


the company in the light of the revised estimates and looked at the market, they reckoned that considerably more money and, perhaps, a little longer time would be needed before a proper entry could be made into this difficult though important market.

Mr. Montgomery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern being felt by many firms which are owed a great deal of money by Beagle Aircraft? In view of the Government's involvement, does he not feel that they have a moral obligation to do something about these debts?

Mr. Carmichael: We are aware of the number of these firms, but that is a tot ally different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Mr. Corfield: But will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it was a very short time prior to the insolvency of this company that the Government decided to purchase it? Is it not clear that it should have been possible to foresee the capital requirements much more accurately than was done? Should not an inquiry be held?

Mr. Carmichael: The investigation of the company showed that it seemed possible that it could be viable. It is just that the market proved particularly difficult. The Government decision, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement, was that, given the difficulties and the priorities required for Government money, he did not consider that this was a top priority.

Gas Centrifuges (Discussions)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a statement on the discussions between the United Kingdom, Germany and Holland on the development of gas centrigues for nuclear fuel enrichment.

Mr. Benn: All that I can add to the statement I made to the House on 19th December, 1969, is that the Federal German and Netherlands Governments have communicated the draft of the Agreement to the European Commission in accordance with Article 103 of the Euratom Treaty.—[Vol. 793, c. 1732–40.]

Mr. Dalyell: Would my right hon. Friend comment on the bellicose and

naïve attitudes attributed to him by Mr. Leonard Beaton in The Times on this subject?

Mr. Benn: I read The Times, and I did see this article. I can only underline again that this is another vivid example of a good basis of partnership between Government and industry.

Mr. David Price: Referring back to the original statement, when will we get the legislation which the right hon. Gentleman promised?

Mr. Benn: The Bill on the Nuclear Fuel Company will be coming soon.

Electricity Generating Capacity

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied that there is sufficient reliable electricity generating capacity to meet peaks of demand during cold spells; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Technology (1) what is the total generating capacity of the electrical supply industry in megawatts at midwinter for this year and last, and the spare capacity margin over maximum demand expressed as a percentage;
(2) whether he will give an assurance that steps will be taken to prevent a repetition this year of the voltage reduction at power stations which occurred as a result of the cold weather and increased demand at the end of November, 1969.

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Technology whether he is satisfied that electricity generating capacity will be adequate to meet peak demand during the present winter; and if he will make a statement.

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Technology what has been the maximum demand for electricity so far this winter; and what was the margin of spare generating capacity then available.

Mr. Benn: The estimated maximum potential demand so far this winter has been 39,655 megawatts. There was no spare capacity available at the time and voltage reductions were necessary in some parts of the country. Apart from voltage reductions amounting to 3 per cent to 6 per cent. on 11 days the C.E.G.B. has continued to meet demand and it and the


manufacturers are working hard to overcome the plant difficulties to which I referred in my answer on 15th December.
I will, with permission, circulate more detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.—[Vol. 793, c. 229–30.]

Mr. Emery: But is the right hon. Gentleman not immensely concerned that, after assurances by him and other Ministers earlier this year that there would be adequate capacity to meet all demand, we have had this amount of load shedding? Second, when does he expect that the 22 of the 47 500-megawatt sets which have developed serious faults will be available to meet the demand?

Mr. Benn: Of course, I am naturally concerned and I have expressed that view in answer to earlier Questions. I cannot give an exact figure, because it depends on technical complexities, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will notice the different attitude with which the Americans have treated such technical troubles as they have had with the 747, compared to the treatment accorded by the party opposite to the technical difficulties which we have experienced.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, in column 1466 of HANSARD for 26th July, there was an answer which said that there would be 18 per cent. spare capacity? Is he now telling the country that, as far back as July, he had no idea that there would be these breakdowns? Why was no action taken then?

Mr. Benn: If he has followed this, the hon. Gentleman will know that the technical difficulties arising with the big 500-megawatt sets have been the reason why the margin of capacity which was provided for and which was referred to in that Answer, has not been able, on the days which I mentioned, to meet the full demand this winter. That is the sole and simple explanation.

Mr. Lane: But is not one of the reasons for public concern the excess of optimistic statements by spokesmen for the nationalised industries? I am thinking not only of electricity but of coal. Cannot the Government do something about that?

Mr. Benn: My understanding of the statements made in the House was that,

when asked, Ministers gave the gross margin of operating capacity which would be provided in the course of the winter and that was absolutely right. In the event, there have been the technical difficulties which I have mentioned, but, on looking back, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman will think that there has been any misleading of public opinion on this matter.

Sir J. Eden: But surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the margin of spare capacity has now completely evaporated? In these circumstances, does he think that it would have been wiser to have gone for a little more flexible plant mix? Are these faults due more to design or to manufacture?

Mr. Benn: I do not believe that I had better comment on the technical aspects of this, because this is a matter on which one would expect an engineering answer. The hon. Gentleman will know that, because of the time that it takes to erect these stations, the decisions underlying the first part of his question were taken many years ago.

Mr. Shinwell: But is it not somewhat surprising that, after 24 years of a nationalised electricity supply industry—and the weather is not too bad, either—there should be insufficient spare capacity, a shortage of equipment and the suggestions which we have had from some spokesmen of the industry that there might be power cuts?

Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend is, I think, confusing the shortage of capacity with the technical difficulties of the 500-megawatt sets—and the production of those sets is not undertaken in the public sector.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the Minister not agree that it is unfair to make all these criticisms of the Central Electricity Generating Authority, when the plant which has given rise to these faults was constructed by private industry? Therefore, should not at least some of the criticism be directed against companies like A.E.I., which supplied the faulty equipment?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is himself an engineer, for making that point. At the same time, I deeply respect the C.E.G.B. for not


having emphasised this point because it was well aware of the effect which this might have on British export performance. Trying to import political advant-

MAXIMUM DEMAND AND CEGB OUTPUT CAPACITY (MW)


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)


Winter
Maximum Demand Met
Calculated Maximum Demand in Average Cold Spell Conditions
CEGB Maximum Output capacity on 1st January
Gross Plant Margin (Per cent.) ((4) as percentage of (3))


1967–68
…
…
35,818
35,600
41,463
11


1968–69
…
…
37,738
37,600
44,343
18


1969–70
…
…
38,156*
39,300†
46,035
17


* To date: the estimated maximum potential demand so far this winter has been 39,655 MW.


† This was the CEGB's latest estimate prior to the 1969–70 winter; when the full winter's experience has been analysed this figure may be adjusted accordingly.

Smokeless Fuels

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Technology what representations he has received from consumers about shortage of smokeless fuel; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Alan Williams: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), on 19th January. The replies varied with the type of complaint.—[Vol. 794, c. 4.]

Mr. Emery: Is it not a major castigation of Government Departments that Lord Robens should criticise Government Departments for a lack of liaison on this matter? How many smokeless zones—this is one of the problems here—is he recommending should not be activated, which is meeting the criticism of the Minister of Housing?

Mr. Williams: Six zones have been suspended at the request of the local authorties. As for the comments of the Chairman of the National Coal Board, to some extent, they were a good example of poetic licence, but not of practical accuracy.*

Steel

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Technology having regard to lengthy deliveries of many classes and specifications of steels and rolled and re-rolled steel products affecting adversely manufacturing industries, what steps he is now taking to expedite steel deliveries generally in the interests of improving export performance in 1970; and whether he will make a statement concerning the
[* Note: See Official Report, 27th January, 1970 Col. 1205.]

age into technical difficulties is one of the least attractive methods of the party opposite in all these matters.

The following is the information:

effect of increased steel imports on the United Kingdom balance of payments.

Mr. Harold Lever: I keep in close touch with the industry which is making strenuous efforts to meet demands. Last year, despite the strikes, output was 6 per cent. up and delivery times should improve as new plant becomes fully operational.
The balance of payments cost of extra imports was £16·5 million in the first eleven months of 1969, but the value of exports was still more than twice that of imports. These imports helped to make possible the high level of exports of steel-based manufactured goods.

Sir G. Nabarro: Since strikes last year cost the consumer 750,000 tons of steel, why has nationalisation of steel been characterised, first, by ever-lengthening deliveries, second, by ever-increasing prices, and, third, by ever-increasing imports to meet the requirements of consumers which the industry here cannot fulfil?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman's talk of ever-increasing deliveries and prices is merely a description of the international steel scene, where there has been a sudden uprush in demand in all countries. All countries face very similar problems to our own. Far from prices having been higher in this country than in others, they have been a great deal lower and will still remain below the prices in Europe.

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Technology what representations he has received about shortages of supplies of light steel products to the building and construction industry; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Harold Lever: Some firms are experiencing difficulties in obtaining supplies of reinforcement material, but I am satisfied that the steel industry is doing all it can to meet the sudden upsurge in home demand resulting from scarce and expensive foreign supplies. I shall continue to keep a close watch on the situation.

Mr. Lane: While thanking him for that Answer, may I ask the Minister to keep in mind the fact that a number of building firms in East Anglia are experiencing delivery delays of four months or more? Will he give an assurance that when the tempo of building and construction picks up again, after the winter, there will not be a further deterioration in the situation?

Mr. Lever: I hope that the hon. Member is not implying any shortfall in the performance of the Steel Corporation in respect of these articles. The production of these rods is currently 50 per cent. higher than it was last year. It is proceeding at maximum pace. The House should understand that the reason for the difficulty is that a great part of this trade was supplied from abroad when foreign prices were cheaper than those of the Corporation, but the sharp rise in foreign prices led people who normally contracted from abroad for a large part of their supplies to come rather unexpectedly and suddenly on to local production.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Notwithstanding the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave about a rise in production, which I querry, is he aware that most of the steel stockholding companies are at least 50 per cent. down on what they normally hold of this type of material and that this is through lack of supplies from the steel makers? Can he explain that?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Member means lack of supply from their traditional steel makers from abroad, which was normally 32 per cent. higher than is the case this year. It is no good the hon. Member shaking his head. The stockholders' supplies are, of course, down. There has been a huge rush by contractors to buy the cheap rods which are available from the Steel Corporation, instead of depending on overseas supplies. Despite

a 50 per cent. increase in production, stocks are down and deliveries are difficult.

Computers (Public Contracts)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he intends to take to ensure that a fair proportion of public contracts for computers and ancillary equipment go to development areas.

Mr. Varley: The Government's policy is to encourage the development of the British computer industry and preference is given in awarding Government contracts to computers made in Britain. Wherever possible the needs of the development areas are taken into account.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is not quite the situation as companies such as Burroughs Machines in Fife see it? Is it not in the national interest that a bigger proportion of computer contracts should go to companies in development areas? Will my hon. Friend say when he intends to send me a reply to the letter which I sent to him before Christmas, with the statistics supplied to me by Burroughs? I have not yet had a reply.

Mr. Varley: I will certainly look into the matter of that letter and get a reply off to my hon. Friend as quickly as possible.
The Government recognise that the computer industry makes a valuable contribution to development areas.

Mr. David Price: Will the Minister clarify a point in his original Answer? Did I hear him say that the Government give priority to computers made in Britain or to computers made in Britain by British companies?

Mr. Varley: To computers made in Britain.

Concorde Aircraft

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what is now the share of development costs expected to be recouped by a levy on the sales of Concorde.

Mr. Benn: We hope to recover some part of the development cost. The precise amount will depend on the level of sales


achieved. It is difficult to give an estimate of this because it depends on a number of factors which are necessarily still uncertain.

Mr. Biffen: Surely the House should be give: a more precise answer than that. Has the right hon. Gentleman indicated to the British Aircraft Corporation the target which it should have in mind in the market research which it has conducted and the sales price which it is quoting? Are they expected to aim at recovering for the British taxpayer at least one-third of the very substantial development costs invested in this aircraft?

Mr. Benn: It is a very complicated matter because it depends where one fixes the price, and that in turn determines to some extent the size of the market and the recovery by the Government under the levy arrangement. We are discussing the price. It is not yet settled. The reason it is uncertain is that the market cannot yet be known, although we are moving towards a situation in which the market for the Concorde will become more apparent.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. hon. Friend aware that in the publicity which it has issued the British Aircraft Corporation is writing off the cost of the R. and D. althogether? Will he ask the Corporation to correct that misleading publicity?

Mr. Benn: I should need to read the brochure before I assented to that view. The B.A.C. knows very well that there is a levy Arranged to be on the margin in the selling price, and I find it hard to believe that my hon. Friend has not misunderstood the situation.

Sir A. V. Harvey: As one who has consistently supported the Concorde project, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the very large sums of money involved, he will seriously consider publishing a White Paper informing the House and the country of all the details and of the prospects, good and bad, so that we know where we are and we may perhaps debate the matter later?

Mr. Benn: We have published quite a lot of information and the Committee cross-examined officials and others on the subject and published their comments. I

will certainly consider what the hon. and gallant Member suggested. In practice, until we get to the point at which orders are forthcoming, it may not be possible to give firm estimates about the future of the project because in the end it will be determined in the market place.

Mr. Brooks: Have the British and French Governments agreed whether the Concorde shall be sold at the same price irrespective of where it is manufactured? Can my right hon. Friend say whether this depends upon an agreement already reached between the two Governments about the appropriate level at which the levy should be recouped?

Mr. Benn: I should like to look at that question, but my understanding is that the Concorde will be sold at the same price, becausse there is no French Concorde and no British Concorde; each aircraft is constructed in both countries, though some of the aircraft are assembled at Bristol and some in Toulouse.

Nationalised Industries (Finance)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has to finance part of the capital requirements of the nationalised industries for 1968–69 to 1973–74, outlined in Command Paper No. 4234, in the form of a private equity or debenture participation.

Mr. Harold Lever: None, Sir.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite evident from that White Paper that the capital requirements, in as much as they are financed from domestic sources, must come either from higher prices or from taxation? Will he not therefore diminish his political prejudices and join with those of us who seek to tap a wider private capital market in this fast-growing area of expenditure?

Mr. Lever: If the present financing system of the nationalised industries derives from my political prejudices, these at any rate appear to have been shared by predecessor Conservative Governments. In fact, they are sensible financial arrangements. The amusing possibilities opened by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion must, I fear, be resisted.

Sir K. Joseph: Does the Minister not accept that unless the Government rescue Government borrowing from the public,


which has slumped so disastrously under the present Administration, then, as my hon. Friend said, if the proposals in his Question are rejected, investment will come only from price increases or taxation increases?

Mr. Lever: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that the Government have any difficulty in borrowing what is required for public purposes. On the contrary, the Government are at present net repayers of debt.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman qualify that by saying, "Borrowing for public purposes at a record high price to the taxpayer"?

Mr. Lever: In that respect, of course, sharing the experience of every major Government in the world.

Hon. Members: No.

Aircraft (Sonic Bangs)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Technology what action he has taken to prepare the people living in the Scottish Highlands and Islands, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Wales and Devon and Cornwall for the sonic bangs soon to be tested in their areas: and if he will offer compensation for loss of amenity and for noise in addition to that for damage to property and persons.

Mr. Carmichael: Officials have discussed the proposed Concorde test route with the administrative authorities in these areas. Compensation will be paid only for damage caused directly by sonic bangs.

Mr. Jenkins: Is not that entirely unsatisfactory? Does not the French experience suggest that considerable disturbance, other than direct damage, will be caused by sonic bangs? Will not my hon. Friend look into the whole question again?

Mr. Carmichael: There is a later Question about the French experience in this respect. My hon. Friend will agree that to try to evaluate loss of amenities in cash terms is very difficult. Some of the other suggestions made are difficult to quantify.

Mr. Corfield: In view of the importance of this project to the nation, will the hon. Member confirm that it is not unreasonable to ask some people to give up some amenity in the national interest?

Mr. Carmichael: That is one of the very big problems of modern technology—how much are we willing to give up in the furtherance of technology? It is a decision for the nation as a whole.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware that the French Government has paid £143,000 in claims for damages by sonic bangs and that accidents caused by these bangs have caused the deaths of 13 people; and if he will take these matters into account before proceeding further with the Concorde production programme.

Mr. Carmichael: I understand that the French Government did pay the sum mentioned in compensation for damage caused by sonic bangs. Their investigations, however, did not reveal that any deaths were directly caused by sonic bangs.

Mr. Jenkins: Is not the operative word in my hon. Friend's answer the word "directly"? Were not the deaths caused indirectly? Be that as it may, is it not also the case that part of the misleading publicity to which I have referred, and of which his right hon. Friend has not yet heard—I will send him a copy—describes the sonic bang of the Concorde as a low rumble which will disturb no one? Does he think that is an accurate description?

Mr. Carmichael: I have never heard it described as a low rumble, but I will look forward to reading what my hon. Friend has to send. As for the French experience, there was one fatal accident involving the collapse of a farm building following a sonic bang. It was found afterwards that the building was in a highly unsafe condition and could have collapsed at any moment. The effects of the sonic bang will be carefully assessed during the tests before the Government decide how civil supersonic flying over this country should be regulated.

Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman take some action to warn people about what they can do to prevent damage—to prevent not just one pane in a greenhouse going, but the lot? Is he aware that nothing has so far been done by the Ministry and that it ought to be done soon?

Mr. Carmichael: The Ministry has been having many discussions, for instance, with ecclesiastical authorities,


about our cathedrals. We have discussed the possibilities of damage and of examining these buildings. We have advised that buildings over the test route in an unsafe condition should be attended to.

Mr. Ellis: Would my hon. Friend reject in no uncertain terms the statement put forward by the official Opposition spokesman that somehow, in the national interest, I think it was put, we should expect people 1.0 give up amenity and accept the case that if there is noise and disturbance it will incommode people, but we will have to accept it? Is he aware that many of us have constituents engaged in this vital work and believe that it is a technical problem to do with the aircraft? We have to solve the disadvantageous problems. Would he make that clear?

Mr. Carmichael: There is always a balance to be struck in this. The important thing is that test flying starting during the summer will be carefully observed and evaluated before decisions are made as to civil flying over land.

Units of Measurement

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what advice he has now received from the Advisory Committee on Legal Units of Measurement on the need for a Standing Advisory Body on Units and Standards of Measurement in the place of the commission envisaged in the Weights and Measures Act, 1963.

Mr. Benn: The Committee has not yet been asked to consider this problem, but it will be invited to do so as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Committee itself will advise on the matters which were to be assigned to the Commission envisaged in the 1963 Act.

Mr. Osborn: As it is now some months since the Minister's statement on the subject and the Weights and Measures Department is now split between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology, can we have some guidance on which Department will be responsible for future legislation, particularly on metrication—the Ministry of Technology or the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has followed this, and knows what has happened and why. Metrication was

given to us to look after because of its importance in industrial standards. I do not believe that the residual responsibilities in the Board of Trade will be any barrier here. We are expecting advice from this body to reach us in time for legislation.

Atomic Energy Authority Employees (Radiation Hazards)

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Technology if he will now review the regulations which the Atomic Energy Authority follows in making decisions on the award of pensions to employees on ill-health grounds, with a view to making provision for employees exposed to radiation hazards who subsequently contract leukaemia: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: I do not think that the arrangements in the Authority's schemes need to be amended. However, I will circulate a fuller reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is serious concern about this matter, especially since the unfortunate case of Mr. McDonald? Would he agree that any employee who is exposed to radiation hazards and who subsequently contracts leukaemia ought really to be given the benefit of the doubt in pension entitlement?

Mr. Benn: With regard to the personal case mentioned by my hon. Friend, he knows that I have this in my hands at the moment. The argument that he puts forward in his supplementary question raises quite different considerations and he had better read my fuller reply before he pursues this.

Following is the reply:
The Atomic Energy Authority has the same liabilities to its employees and ex-employees as any other employer. If an employee or ex-employee of the Authority contracts leukaemia or, for that matter, any other disease, he may make a claim against the Authority if he is of the view that the disease has been caused by his work with the Authority and that the Authority is liable in law. If the disease is one that is prescribed under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965, he may also claim against the Department of Health and Social Security for benefit under that Act. In both cases the claim will stand or fall on its merits.
There is no prima facie case that employment in the Atomic Energy Authority contributes to leukaemia diagnosed in its employees


or ex-employees. In fact, figures going back to 1962 indicate that the average incidence of leukaemia among Authority staff is less than the national average incidence for persons of comparable age.

Eastern European Countries (Technical Agreements)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to set up joint committees with those Eastern European countries with which Great Britain has technical agreements; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: Proposals along these lines have been discussed with the Soviet authorities and are under consideration.

Mr. Moonman: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the technical agreements can be a serious commitment to scientific and technical collaboration or they can be nothing, and if we do not follow the French Government in preparing the manned committees, involving industry and Government, we shall not gain the benefits about which he is talking? Would he agree that other countries than Russia are involved here?

Mr. Benn: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but I do not believe that a big machine is always necessary to get the results out of the agreements. As I have told my hon. Friend and the House, we are considering these proposals.

Steel Prices

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Technology (1) whether, in view of the financial position of the British Steel Corporation, he proposes to approve further price increases this year;
(2) whether he will make a statement on the British Steel Corporation's programme of cost reduction for the coming year as recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in Report No. 111, May, 1969.

Mr. Harold Lever: The Government have decided that they will raise no objection to an increase in the British Steel Corporation's prices of 10 per cent. on average. This takes account of the Corporation's formal programme of cost-saving, which is designed to save £15 million in the year to September. I am circulating details on these closely-related matters in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what criteria he has given permission for the rise being accepted by the Government? Does he recall how the Government were criticised in June of last year for refusing the appropriate rise asked for by the Steel Corporation? Can he say what effect this rise will have on many steel using industries, including our motor car industry? What does he propose to do about that?

Mr. Lever: The criteria mainly concerned are, first, the competitiveness of the steel industry at the new prices and, secondly, the commercial viability of the Corporation earning its living and making a contribution to the development of the steel industry. Prices will remain very competitive with those of other producing countries.

Sir J. Eden: Surely it is self-evident that the British Steel Corporation is here seeking to take advantage of buoyant market conditions. If this is acceptable to the Government in the case of a nationalised monopoly, why do the Government still seek to interfere with the rest of British industry when it attempts to do the same sort of thing?

Mr. Lever: There is a great deal of difference between one industry and another, quite irrespective of whether it is nationally owned or privately owned. The particular circumstance of the steel industry is that it has already held its prices very substantially below world market prices for a long time. It is now necessary, in order that this industry should make a moderate return on its capital, to bring its prices nearer into line with world prices.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Christopher Price—Sir Keith Joseph.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose—

Sir K. Joseph: But is it not the fact—

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Did I not distinctly hear you call Question No. 31?

Mr. Speaker: It is not the first time that I change my mind in calling Members at Question Time. Sir Keith Joseph.

Sir K. Joseph: But is it not the fact that if a privately-owned industry—one in competition amongst itself—had raised prices far more than the cost increase, which is what has happened in the case of the British Steel Corporation, the Government would have made an almighty fuss, and would have referred that industry to one of their many tribunals?

Mr. Lever: We did, in fact, refer this industry to the Board and I will not have any difficulty in deciding to send the industry to the Board again when it might be useful to do so, but the last reference was only very recent. This price rise is fully justified, and that is the unanimous view of the Government, who have given very close consideration to it.

Following are the details:

Statement on Steel Prices
The British Steel Corporation has proposed that it should increase its prices by an average of 12 per cent. The Iron and Steel Consumers' Council has considered the proposals and has told the Minister that it accepts the need for a price increase sufficient to enable the Corporation to achieve commercial viability on a long-term basis.
2. The Government has studied the proposals in the light of the Corporation's position, the requirements of the economy and of Prices Policy, and the situation of steel users, and has decided that it will raise no objection to an immediate increase of 10 per cent. on average. This will still leave United Kingdom prices fully competitive. The Corporation has agreed to implement its proposals within this average as from tomorrow, Tuesday, 27th January.
3. The Government has indicated its intention to refer price increases to the N.B.P.I. or its proposed successor where this would be helpful. However in view of the fact that the N.B.P.I. has recently reported on the British Steel Corporation (Report No. 111, May 1969), they have concluded that the imperative need was for the Corporation to be able to increase its revenue immediately. But the Government will consider the possibility of an early reference to the proposed Commission on Industry and Manpower on the Corporation's efficiency and cost saving measures.
4. The Corporation has already made progress with its formal programme of cost-saving which this year is expected to save a further £15 million and these measures to effect cost savings will be continued. In addition new investment and rationalisation will produce important savings later especially on the new Product Division basis. The Corporation is also improving manning standards in co-operation with the unions.
5. The private sector of the steel industry which following the recommendation of the N.B.P.I. last year is not required to give early

warning, will be free within the commercial restraints to raise its prices. In the case of non-alloy bright bars, where early warning remains in effect, the Government will make no objection to producers raising their prices by an amount sufficient to cover the increased cost of their mix of black bar purchases based on the new B.S.C. list.

Jute Goods (Imports)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about the effect of the quota system for imports of jute goods in its first year of operation, and about his plans for future adjustments in quotas.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: The quota system for imports of jute goods came into effect on 1st May, 1969, and has therefore not yet been in operation for a full year. The Department is currently reviewing the operation of the system with a view to deciding the level of the quotas in the year beginning 1st May, 1970. Present indications are that in the first quota year an increase in imports from Asian countries of the jute goods subject to quota restrictions will be more than offset by a decline in imports from other sources, notably E.F.T.A. and the Irish Republic. We hope shortly to announce quota levels for the 1970–71 quota year.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the Parliamentary Secretary noticed that following the introduction of the quota system there has been a marked increase in redundancies locally in Scotland? In view of this, and in view of the pledge which the Prime Minister gave in 1964 in Dundee that jute jobs would be safe under Labour, what does he propose to do to control the situation when he comes to revise the quotas?

Dr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman's Question relates to the quota system. Both sides of industry have attributed the decline in demand for Dundee jute goods, not to imports but mainly to the effect of credit restrictions. Another very important factor is the many substitutes appearing for jute which end users are taking up.

Coking Coal

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of Technology what representations have been made to him to permit the importation of coking coal; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Alan Williams: None, Sir.

Mr. Watkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a world shortage of coking coal and that representations to him on this matter may well be imminent? Will he resist the importation of coking coal whilst pits in such places as North-West Durham which still have reserves of coking coal are being progressively run down?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in referring to a worldwide shortage, but there is as yet no shortage here. A study is being undertaken by the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board to establish whether there will be any shortfall, and we hope to have the report very soon.

Mr. Eadie: Will my hon. Friend condemn the S.N.P. in Scotland which is in favour of the importation of coking coal and, which at the same time, for political party purposes goes round scaremongering about threatened pit closures which many pit managers are valiantly trying to prevent?

Mr. Williams: I think that we are all accustomed to the inconsistencies we get from small fringe parties.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman do something about this absurd situation whereby Scottish steelworks are traditionally expected to pay £1 a ton more for coking coal than the average price in England and Wales; and try to do something about the very real problem which is restricting expansion of Scottish steel?

Mr. Williams: Hon. Members opposite really must make up their minds whether they want the industry to operate according to commercial criteria. It seems proper that in this case charges should as far as possible be related to actual cost.

Large Electric Power Generators

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what is the extent of the research and development work now being carried out by research establishments, research associations and other organisations for which he is responsible, on 500 megawatt and larger electric power generators; and what is the estimated annual expenditure.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: The research Lind development work being carried out by the Central Electricity Generating Board on 500 MW units and larger is concentrated primarily on turbines, alternators, lubrication and bearings with the aim of realising in full the operating economies they are intended to achieve. The board's estimate of expenditure on this work in the current year is about £850,000, rising to nearly £1 million next year. The board is, of course, working in close collaboration with the manufacturers who themselves are carrying out the bulk of the overall research and development effort on these large units.

Mr. Osborn: The installation of 500 megawatt, and subsequently larger, units presents this country with a problem. What steps are being taken to implement the Wilson Committee's Report, which recommended that any prototype should be tried for two years before subsequent models are ordered for general production?

Dr. Davies: These machines are so large and so expensive that inevitably the first one that is ordered is of itself a prototype. Any subsequent machine which is installed also has commissioning problems which are very much related to that of a prototype. I do not think building a machine prior to its installation for test purposes and not using it in a power station would justify the expense involved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply)—

(1) the Business of Supply may be anticipated by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House;
(2) Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock;
(3) the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour during a period of one hour after Ten o'clock, though opposed; and
(4) so soon as the Motion relating to Agriculture shall have been disposed of Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Question which he is directed to put at Ten o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Pearl.]

NIGERIA (RELIEF PLANS)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
The House, and perhaps even more the public, are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this debate on relief measures to be taken by Her Majesty's Government in Nigeria. Seldom during the last few days have the people been more confused. This applies to many hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country as well as the Dean of St. Paul's and others of great distinction.
Seldom, I think, has there been a greater conflict of evidence produced, on the one hand, by optimistic official statements, including the main body of Lord Hunt's Report, and, on the other, the far more pessimistic account of a host of eye-witnesses, international journalists of repute, relief workers and missionaries of great devotion.
Such are these contradictions that out of them has arisen a serious credibility gap. To allay these fears and close this gap Her Majesty's Government, this afternoon, I hope, will take the opportunity. There is another anxiety. That is that some Government statements seem almost to give the impression that the partial moral responsibility for what was happening in the war has with peace ended. This is neither logical nor, I believe, acceptable to the great mass of the public.
"The phenomenon of human caring" is not a new emanation of television and permissiveness; it is simply the deep sense, both common and moral, of our people which realises that a decent settlement after a war is not only in the interests of conscience, but in the interests of peace, stability and trade. If this sense is heightened and quickened and given power by modern communications, I, for my pan, thank God.
Here again, the Government have an opportunity to express their will, their intention and influence this afternoon. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to boast on "Panorama" that his influence in Lagos could stop the bombing of villages and a few hours later Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries whimper on the same medium that they cannot start the feeding. In Lord Hunt's Report

there seemed especially three areas where his Lordship's findings are, to say the least, questionable and certainly, to my mind, seem to minimise the area and size of the problem. In these three subjects which I propose to discuss, I believe that there is a conflict either of known fact or with the views of other reputable witnesses.
The first area is on the size of the region afflicted and of its general background. I think that this is vital to consideration of the problem of relief today in Nigeria. If the areas where the military control of the Nigerian Federal Army run along main roads is included, and those great areas north of Onitsha-Enugu road and the road out towards Calabar, the size of the afflicted area is far more like that of Yorkshire than of Hampshire, which he used for his description.
Also, in his general background Lord Hunt does not lay any score on the fact that before the civil war the whole Eastern region was a net importer of food on a very big scale, protein to the extent of 50 per cent. and of carbohydrates about 30 per cent. Nor does he mention that the yam harvest collected in September was one of the worst on record. Nor does he mention that the price of garry, that is to say, cassava for human consumption, has risen by no less than 300 per cent. within six months, which shows that there was a considerable shortage of cassava in the district. So much for the talk about "geraniums". So, also, for the talk about happy refugees, suggesting that they were returning to some sort of harvest home.
The next area of dispute must be about numbers. This is of the utmost importance. Lord Hunt's Report, in paragraph 12, seems to contain fairly odd composition. The paragraph reads:
We have no present means of assessing the actual numbers but we can say with conviction that they do not come to more than 1·5 to 2 million.
That is a very strange piece of logic and language. These figures must be probed by the House. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will tell us by whom these figures and statistics were composed, how they were composed, and so forth. It is fair to say that the census of 1963, which, as hon. Members familiar with Nigeria know, was not particularly accurate, showed


that in the four central provinces of the East Central State, using Lord Hunt's analogy of Hampshire, the population was 31 million; and it is also fair to say that 750,000 refugees came from the North and another 750,000 from other areas over-run by the Federal side.
Far more important and far more recent are the figures collected by the Protestant side of Joint Church Aid, the Rev. A. G. Somerville of the Church of Scotland. If the House will bear with me, it is worth my pointing out how these figures stood in November: about 1½ million people in 1,757 camps; 951,000 needy persons at 1,536 feeding centres; 10,000 patients in 19 hospitals; 7,400 children in 107 sick bays; in addition, a calculation of about ½ million people receiving assistance. This last figure was guesswork, it has been made clear to me.
Further, there is bound to be overlap. In any place where there are famine and distress, people will try to draw their rations, or their topping up—whatever phrase one uses—of protein diet from as many centres as possible. Allowance must be made for that. If these figures are correct and if, as Mr. Somerville assured me, the Roman Catholic organisation was looking after the same sort of numbers, even when 33 per cent. is knocked off for probable duplication of feeding and for people trying to have a second go, a figure of about 4 million is left.
In addition—this is the key figure—according to Mr. Somerville 1 million of these people were not receiving topping up rations, but were totally dependent for their existence on the food given to them by the relief organisations. It that be doubled, or even if it be halved, the numbers of people in a really severe plight, perhaps in the bush, must be very large indeed.
Finally on figures, an American official source has given a figure in the enclave of something nearer 4 million than 3 million, 1 million of whom were suffering from oedema which, as medical Members in the House will know, is not visible even to the trained eye, but can be discovered only by medical examination, be that examination one of the most simple kind.
Therefore, these figures must be examined further, and especially Lord Hunt's rather throwaway statement, "Although we have been able to establish no "—whatever the phrase was—"we nevertheless are convinced that …".
I turn next to the question of the conflict of evidence over needs and methods of distribution. Lord Hunt does not mention a figure of the need for distribution. When I was in Uli I met Dr. Lindt, the then head of the International Red Cross, who expressed his belief that, with an efficient distribution system and with a cash economy still functioning, the desirable figure was about 800 tons of largely protein food per day. After the shooting down of a Red Cross plane, that average landing dropped to about 300 tons, which is totally inadequate and which was a prime cause of the collapse of the Biafran State.
Miss Bloom, who is obviously a very reputable journalist, has stated in the Financial Times that Lagos hoped to get in an average of 2,000 tons a week—let us say slightly under 300 tons a day. Lord Hunt merely says that the situation is improving daily, but Mr. Tony Lewis, of the New York Times, who spent three times as long in the distressed areas as Lord Hunt, reported yesterday that 14 days after the end of fighting one truck had reached Orlu and, on cross-questioning about relief south and east of Uli, his answer was, "Zero". Here again, the House requires some explanation.
There must be a fear that the magnitude of this problem has not been assessed and that, for fear of giving offence, the point has not been put with sufficient vigour that perhaps one nation alone cannot cope with the size of the sort of problems that lie ahead. No one questions the devotion or the dedication of the Nigerian Red Cross. The danger is that the plan is not on a sufficient scale.
My personal fear is not only that this Government have not done enough, but that they have done it the wrong way. With the sudden surrender, with the sudden breakdown of a State, which Biafra was, with the collapse of a currency, there simply was no contingency plan of any size at all, except for that one pathetic aeroplane which kept being loaded and unloaded and loaded and unloaded at Lyneham.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: This is a sovereign State. How can we interfere?

Mr. Fraser: I am coming to that point.
The fact is that it was not an observer who should have been sent, but a senior Minister who should at once have flown to Lagos to persuade and cajole, and even go to the length of insisting on an effective plan for relief rather than the halfhearted under-powered schemes to which Lord Hunt and the Joint Under-Secretary acquiesced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) said that this is a sovereign State. Of course it is. But we have a moral responsibility as a supplier of arms on an unprecedented scale unchallenged by the Government. The article which appeared in the Sunday Times last week made it clear that we have not what the hon. Gentleman once called a residual colonial responsibility, but a residual human responsibility; and that should be discharged.
I believe that any such plan would have to be based on Uli. It is useless for British official sources to go on so resolutely propagating the idea that distribution by road is the most efficient method. Enugu is three to four days by road from Lagos. There is no direct road to Harcourt. The House knows the problem of shipping at the moment in the main Lagos harbour. One needs only to read the Scott Report to understand the road conditions. Only yesterday two C97 aircraft found it impossible to land at either Harcourt or Enugu Airports. Yet next week, according to the Press, there will by 20 large aeroplanes per day arriving in Lagos's overloaded airport.
We have here a mystery which I believe a senior Minister rather than the Joint Under-Secretary or Lord Hunt could have perhaps solved with General Gowon. When General Ojukwu was still in power and at war, General Gowon was, in principle, prepared to allow Red Cross planes to land at Uli. Now, when there is peace, when the Ibos have totally submitted, when the need for rapid reconcilliation is paramount, when lives and time are at stake, why does the General refuse? In view of his clear will to concil ate, in view of his amnesty, his attitude is inexplicable. I believe that a senior Minister could have made this point more effectively, with that pleni-

potentiary power which exists in a senior Minister but denied to Lord Hunt, whatever his other attributes. That is my first suggestion.
Lord Hunt speaks of a crash programme. I believe that the essence of that crash programme is to make it effective by air. This I believe even more after one reads today about the possible disorders which are running in the Owerri area against the movement of food. As a first and immediate step, that is what should be done. The idea that General Gowon is adamant in his attitude is nonsense. Only today there has been a change, and he has allowed Dutch relief, which has been prohibited previously, to come in.
I believe that that is the first thing that should be done. But I also believe that there are other things which would be of value. For example, the outside world could help the Nigerian Red Cross in areas of transport, communications and moves to get the cash economy going again. There is a shortage of trucks and communication and light transport aircraft.
I believe that the programme in Lord Hunt's schedule could be speeded up and that a great many of the things which are proposed to be sent could be sent by air more swiftly than they are today. Transport Command crews and aircraft with suitable markings should be offered to the Nigerian Red Cross. If there is a need—and there may well be one—the food which is deteriorating in San Tomé, about which I have just had a telegram from Joint Church Aid, should be offered to the Nigerian Red Cross. Medical teams should be offered not for service in old Biafra, but to allow Nigerian doctors and nurses to go into the relief zones. Communication networks, which are so lacking at the moment, and personnel, should be loaned to the Nigerian relief agency.
To restore the cash economy, which is perhaps the most important thing we can do today, the World Bank should be asked to take some action to purchase Biafran currency, whatever the discount. The International Postal Union should facilitate remittances from Ibos overseas, and British firms in the east central State should be encouraged and helped to re-establish salaries and pension schemes and give employment, and Treasury


control should be relaxed. These are things that we can do. I believe that the situation has been under-assessed by the Government and that it must be assessed again.
In this House over the past few years I have differed from many in believing that this was a meaningless and unwinnable war in any true sense of the word. I believed that negotiation was possible. I have believed that the Ibos and their kin merited an international personality. There are others who believed that only a military solution was possible to prevent the balkanisation of Africa at almost any human price. History will judge which of us was right, but in one thing we are united—in the need to prevent further needless suffering. More can and should be done by our Government, for I believe that over-insurance now is the one sin that posterity will forgive.

3.54 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): I should like to give the House a brief account of the relief which the Government have provided to the war areas at the request of the Nigerian Government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will speak at the end of the debate to answer points raised during the debate, and both of us will restrict our contributions to give the maximum time to those who want to intervene.
I do not think that anyone would deny that we are all torn by the tragic consequences and aftermath of this civil war and are moved by the compassion and desire to help those who have suffered. This desire has been evoked in the House and throughout the country. But we must recognise that the responsibility for handling the situation lies with and has been fully accepted by the Federal Government of Nigeria.
I need hardly remind the House, although I must in the light of what the right hon. Member for Stafford arid Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) has just said, that Nigeria is a sovereign independent State and has been since it was granted its independence about 10 years ago. Indeed, hon. Members may have seen reports of the anger which has been reflected in the

Lagos Press by the appearance that in this debate the British Parliament might be taking it upon itself to debate Nigeria's internal affairs.

Mr. E. Shinwell: When we were providing them with arms they did not object to any debate in the House. Surely the argument used by my hon. Friend—who, by the way, has done a great deal to solve the problems confronting Nigeria and the former Biafran people—that we have no right to intervene or try to use our influence with General Gowon because Nigeria is a sovereign State, is invalid, because we enabled Nigeria to win the war.

Mr. Foley: I want to clarify this point and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising it. It has never been suggested that we should not discuss in this House our policy vis-àvis the civil war in Nigeria. But there is now no civil war. The point for us to bear in mind is this: yes, make our proposals to the Nigerian Government for assisting them in their relief work, but do not lose sight of the fact that it is their problem. To discuss our rôe in helping them to solve their problem is proper, but to suggest that we can override their sovereignty is something that we must look into closely.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: rose—

Mr. Foley: No, I cannot give way again.
Their reaction may be partly due to national pride, but it is more than that. General Gowon and his colleagues have undertaken an historic act of national reconciliation. They believe—and who in the House or anywhere else can deny it?—that it is the very heart and kernel of the programme of reconciliation, on which the whole future of Nigeria turns, that it should be the Nigerians themselves who bring to the needy in the former secessionist area the help and succour of which they are in such dire need.
National reconciliation has been General Gowon's proclaimed intention. None can fail to have been moved by the sincerity and magnanimity with which these intentions were at once implemented. We have all seen on television the reconciliation of the leaders of the armed forces and are aware of the immediate acceptance of former secessionist


leaders, military and civil, and their incorporation into the pressing tasks of bringing order and relief into the affected areas.
This is the background—a background of a supreme effort at reconciliation between Nigerians themselves—against which we must consider our contribution. The Nigerian Government have not spurned outside help in the awesome task before them, but they have asked that help from outside should be in support of the massive operation that they, the Government, and the Nigerian Red Cross, have launched, and in accordance with their specific needs and requirements as made known to us and other countries. They have asked for co-operation, not instruction.
Indeed, the first task was to establish the right kind of machinery to co-ordinate their relief effort. This was clearly necessary to avoid the well-meaning anarchy which could have developed to the total confusion and seizing-up of any directed and effective relief programme, if there had been an open door to the rest of the world to invade Nigerian airports, roads and resources with every kind of outside aircraft and organisation.
The Nigerian Government have given primary responsibility for all relief and rehabilitation to the Ministry of Economic Development and Reconstruction. The Ministery has assumed responsibility for the affairs of the Nigerian National Rehabilitation Commission and works through the Nigerian Red Cross—which itself has the full backing of the League of Red Cross Societies—on questions of immediate relief.
The Nigerian Red Cross has in Lagos a liaison committee which meets regularly and on which are represented, under Nigerian Red Cross chairmanship, the main voluntary organisations, both Nigerian and expatriate, and the British High Commission, the American Embassy and many other diplomatic missions. This is an invaluable way of sharing information, making known possible offers and availability of supplies, and co-ordinating requests to Governments and organisations.
Our High Commission in Lagos has been in regular—indeed, almost hourly—touch with the Nigerian Red Cross, the Rehabilitation Commission, the Ministry of Economic Development and Recon-

struction and the Permanent Secretary responsible, as well as representing Her Majesty's Government on the Liaison Committee. Indeed, in this work, Sir Leslie Glass, the High Commissioner, and his staff have done an outstanding job during this very difficult period, and deserve all the support and encouragement we can give them.
I should now like to give the House some facts and figures about the relief effort and the part we are playing in it.
There are 13,000 tons of food on hand in Nigeria as a whole, with another 6,000 tons due to arrive next week and 1,500 tons have been bought locally. Another 6,500 tons of imported food is in the pipeline and this can be speeded up if necessary. A further 16,000 tons are being purchased locally.
Up to 1,500 tons of food are actually reported to have been distributed last week in the forward areas by the Nigerian Red Cross, and this amount is being rapidly built up to a target of 4,000 tons a week. The I.C.R.C. stockpile at Cotonou, in Dahomey, has been handed over to the Nigerian Red Cross and the United States Government have arranged for the four C97 aircraft which they had chartered to the I.C.R.C. to be made available, with crews, to the Nigerian Red Cross, also.
There is ample food available. The most pressing problem is transporting it to the areas of need and distributing it there. The shortage of vehicles is already being overcome. The British Government were asked to provide urgently 50 Land Rovers and 110 4-ton trucks, and to finance the local purchase of eight 10-tonners. The purchase of the 10-tonners was immediately authorised. The 50 Land Rovers had all been sent by our civil airlift by 21st January. So far, 40 4-tonners have been sent. The rest are following at the rate of about eight a day.
When the fighting ended, the Nigerian Red Cross had about 250 vehicles in the field and 59 more have arrived in the forward areas since then, including 22 4-tonners and 22 Land Rovers, all supplied by Her Majesty's Government, and four 10-tonners, whose purchase we financed. The rest of the vehicles which we have sent are on their way to the areas of need, together with 25 jeeps supplied by the United States Government


and other vehicles which have been purchased locally.
A Norwegian coastal vessel, specially chartered for the run between Lagos and Port Harcourt, arrived at Port Harcourt yesterday with 21 vehicles including 12 of the Bedfords and five of the Land Rovers flown to Lagos by the British Government.
Our response to the medical needs in the new situation has been equally prompt and effective. We have already supplied over 31 tons of medical supplies and more is on the way from the Canadian Government. An I.C.R.C. shuttle air service has been started carrying medical supplies from Lagos to Enugu; in addition two DC6s from the I.C.R.C. have arrived in Lagos. We were asked for 15 doctors and 20 nurses. All but one of the British doctors are already in Nigeria, and 16 of the nurses.
British doctors and nurses who have already been deployed, are actually at work at Ihiala, Owerri, Awka, Afikpo, Umuahia, Aba, Port Harcourt, Orlu and a new centre south-east of Orlu. Already, over 20 Ibo doctors and 50 Ibo nurses have joined the relief operation. Mr. Iloh, who was head of the former "Biafran" Red Cross, is co-operating with the Nigerian Red Cross in recruiting in all 50 doctors and 200 nurses, as well as first-aid auxiliaries.
The Nigerian Red Cross has made a number of requests for mobile hospital units and the first of these has already arrived from the United States, with two more on the way. The Canadians are providing another and the Nigerians are considering what further requirements they might have which may be put to us.
More recently, we have been asked for tents and marquees, and arrangements have already been made to supply a total of 534 tents and 153 marquees, enough to accommodate about 10,000 people. This request is designed to facilitate and accelerate Nigerian plans for the withdrawal of troops from the forward areas. This will make it possible for Ibo civilians to return to their homes by providing new accommodation for the troops. Already, 170 of the total of 687 tents and marquees have been flown out and more are following daily.
Gradually, the emergenscy relief operation will phase itself into a rehabilitation and resettlement programme. The Nigerian Red Cross is registering returning refugees so as to provide them with two or three weeks' supply of food and an issue of seed to help them re-establish themselves. To help this process, we have already air-freighted 85 packs of farm tools.
As Dr. Henrik Beer, the Director General of the League of Red Cross Societies, has said, it is impossible to repair in 10 days the ravages of 2½ years. But what I have said demonstrates that a solid start has been made.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: In paragraph 70 of his report, Lord Hunt says that on 14th January we were asked to send an unspecified amount of listed drugs. Since that date, have we got closer specification of the quantities required, or is there still a grave degree of doubt?

Mr. Foley: The answer is that the Nigerian Red Cross did clarify what it wanted and gave an order of priorities, to which we have responded. All the drugs are there.
The Government are as acutely aware as any hon. Member of the House of the tragedy and suffering which this civil war, like every civil war in history, has brought. Compassion and concern gives us the right to offer our help in any way it can be used, not a right to dictate or take over.

4.10 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No one in the House will doubt for a moment the deep sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who has raised once again this issue of Nigerian relief. I think that all of us would like to pay tribute, as this may, we hope, be one of the last occasions on which we debate this subject, to the patience and sympathy which the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs showed in all his efforts to bring peace while the war lasted.
Today, the hon. Gentleman has given statistics as to the supply of food and vehicles and medicines—indeed, assistance of various kinds—and I think that the list he has just given demonstrates


that at least most of the countries which have shown concern over this matter are aware of the scale on which relief may be necessary. That will be some comfort to my right hon. Friend. This is an international effort. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the Canadians, the United States Government, the Norwegians and ourselves, among others, are contributing to the joint effort.
I hope that, in this debate one distinction will be made clear—that is, the distinction between British concern and the concern of others about the suffering and the relief of the suffering and the responsibility for the conduct of affairs inside Nigeria. There must be no blurred lines here at all. The first can properly be expressed and can be expected to make an impact on the Nigerian Government; the second—that is, the conduct of operations inside Nigeria for relief, resettlement and reconstruction—must be the responsibility of the Nigerian Government representing the majority of the Nigerian people. There has been some reluctance in the House and outside to concede that independence means what it says.
It is not surprising to me that, in this context, the Nigerian leaders have shown some sensitivity at criticisms which, in the new circumstances of peace, seem to be aimed at them, and I think that they are entitled to remind people outside Nigeria that it was not the Federal Government who started the war or appealed to arms, that it was not the Federal Government's decision to prolong the war when people were starving, and that it is the Federal Government—this they are certainly entitled to say—who are trying hard to save the starving, feed the hungry and resettle the refugees.
I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman today, have read the report of Lord Hunt, and have also read all that was said in the newspapers over the weekend. Personally, I do not find surprising the discrepancy between the findings of Lord Hunt and the international observers and the reports of the correspondents—what my right hon. Friend called the "credibility gap" between them.
Right hon. and hon. Members like me remember the Spanish civil war. We

remember the pictures of the suffering of the ordinary people of Spain at that time. We have seen the refugees pouring out of Eastern Germany into West Germany. We know that, when such things are photographed and portrayed, they present the most harrowing picture.
In this civil war, 2 million and more people were crowded into an area which could only support a tiny fraction of that number and in such circumstances there were bound to be the most dreadful and harrowing accounts and pictures of the horror to be found in that area. It is easy to record—and they should be recorded—death, starvation, hunger and misery, overcrowded hospitals and fighting for food, with occasional examples of rape as one will find from soldiers of a victorious army, or indeed from soldiers of a defeated army. All this and its horror can be recorded, and it is true.
But where Lord Hunt and the official observers were undoubtedly right is in this: whereas, if the civil war had continued, many thousands more would have died, now the huge majority will be saved, and it is possible to be categorical on that. So there is a revolutionary change, so to speak, between the occasion on which we last debated the Nigerian question and the debate today—and that is that countless thousands of lives will now be saved and these people will be resettled in their own homes, whereas if the war had continued for another two weeks they would have been dead. It is not to be complacent to say that it is a matter for rejoicing that these people will live.
I would contribute to the flood of information which has come in one piece of news which came to me this morning, unsolicited, from a well-known company which wishes to be anonymous because it does not like the publicity which would be bound to be attendant upon its giving its name, and whose chairman said:
We are in increasing contact with individuals both employees and traders from the very centre of the rebel enclave.
Close questioning reveals information indicating that situation exposes them to much less privation than originally feared.
Survival rate is high and we must expect gradually to make contact with the majority former employees.


One should not generalise from the particular, but here are representatives of a firm, with no axe to grind, who are reporting that they are able to make contact with former employees and are hoping to re-employ them. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone will take some comfort from this.
The important sentences from this report from this firm are
contact with individuals … from the very centre of the rebel enclave
implying an ability to reach these people, and "survival rate"—of employees—"is high", indicating that this may be repeated in the experience of other firms operating in that part of Nigeria.
One may expect that the lives of the great majority of these people will now be saved and that there is a good hope of restoring them in their homes and at their work. The question is: how soon?

Mr. Shinwell: That is the whole point.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is not the whole point. The whole point is that their lives are now saved.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. He has just referred to a communication which refers to "gradually" doing this, and he himself said that something would happen soon. It is a question of administration. I am not complaining about what the Government have done. They have sent a magnificent supply of medical and other materials to Nigeria. But it is a question of time and of administration. As we provided the Nigerian Government with arms to succeed, which was undoubtedly our position, we are entitled to ask General Gowon whether we can succeed in administration, even if it means, as the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) suggested, sending aircraft to particular areas so as to provide succour at the earliest possible moment.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman has almost anticipated the next part of my speech and made it unnecessary for me to make it. I was coming to that question.
I said that the question was: how soon? The situation with which the Nigerian

Government are faced is not static. To the numbers already in the redistribution centres are coming more from the bush and the numbers who can be resettled are being overtaken by the numbers coming into the redistribution centres. The strain on the administrative machine is very great.
I was about to suggest that as a result of the wars which we have fought we have people who are very experienced in resettlement and all the problems connected with it. If there are such people in this country and the Government would make the offer to the Nigerian Government, there may be work that they could do. I would go further and say that we have people who are very skilled in retraining individuals for civil life. Here is an offer which might be made to the Nigerian Government and which might be accepted.
But there is no getting away from the fact that all the analyses have proved that what is wanted is transport and more transport and doctors and hospital staff and more hospital staff. These are the two priorities. I take it, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can confirm this, that if these are requested they will be supplied. There certainly was a time when what the right hon. Gentleman suggested about air transport was true, and if Colonel Ojukwu had only allowed it an airlift could have saved many lives long ago. But now, when we have the evidence of firms operating in the very centre of rebel land and able to get there, so that access is proved to be comparatively easy, the most effective means for relief are lorries, trucks, Land Rovers and jeeps, and boats on the waterways which are countless, which could get to the people who are afflicted by hunger and who want sustenance.
To sum up, while, during the war, the atmosphere was despair, we can now say without complacency that it is hope. The needs are for transport and for hospital staff and these can be supplied by the joint efforts of the nations—it is not only the British Government who are offering supplies. I hope that the administrative machinery in Nigeria can be reinforced and we can certainly make a contribution with technicians. It is not unreasonably hopeful to say from the House today


that while administration may from time to time break down—and the Nigerian Government face a daunting task which would have been daunting for nations much more experienced than Nigeria—we can be reasonably confident that the Nigerians can put conflict behind them and bui d a new trust and unity within that country.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this debate lasts for only three hours. Reasonably brief speeches will help to permit more hon. Members to participate.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: It affords me pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). Not for the first time in discussing Commonwealth affairs, I find myself in agreement with him, particularly in his kind references to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
This is the first time that I have spoken in a debate on Nigeria since the unhappy civil war was begun. The reason for that is that as Chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration I have been engaged on parliamentary business elsewhere. However, on the radio and television I have had an opportunity to make my views known.
It has been my privilege to be associated with many of the leading Nigerian politicians for many years. One of my close personal friends was that great Commonwealth leader the late Prime Minister of Nigeria, Abubakar. I once stayed with him on his farm, and staying with a man is the best way to get to know him. It is my belief that if he had been alive today, we would not have had this unhappy situation in Nigeria.
The initial mistake of British colonialism was to try to federate the country, as though the Hausas, the Yorubas and the Ibos were Nigeria, when, in fact, they were less than half the total population. This meant that many of the other tribes were not given a chance to take part in the government or the running of their affairs.
The late Prime Minister Abubakar told me that it was his intention to try to remedy this situation. He wanted a better re presentation in Nigeria, and in

his quiet way he was gradually getting an ascendency in the North and was getting general support from all Nigerians When I met General Gowon in 1968 he told me that this was his objective. He said that that was the reason for dividing Nigeria into 12 regions. It would enable all the tribes to take a share in the government and the running of the country. It is significant that all the army commanders agreed, except Colonel Ojukwu, a very able and conceited officer, who wished to run his own affairs and who saw himself as the head of the richest part of Nigeria.
In this, he was aided and abetted by foreign Governments who were interested in obtaining control of the oil resources in the area. A very powerful propaganda machine, financed out of the money received from the sale of oil, helped to exploit the poverty and suffering of the people acutely aggravated by the civil war. By these actions the rebels were given baseless hopes and foolish encouragement, thereby prolonging the war and causing even greater suffering.
Those of us who know Africa and Asia know that poverty and misery are the lot of the peoples. It is for this reason that some of us have been in the forefront of pleading for development aid. I hope that many who plead today will come out more strongly than before in saying that there is a need for all of us in the Western world, especially in this country, to help the impoverished people in the two-thirds of the world who have little hope of leading a reasonable life.
General Gowon is a man who is made in the mould of Abubakar. When I was in Nigeria, he arranged for me to visit the war zone and to go to Kaduna and Kano. In the zone I saw Ibos running relief centres. I doubt whether the Germans would have been so trusted by the allies when we were fighting to relieve Europe. They would not have been given the same opportunities. In Kano and in Kaduna I saw houses left by fleeing Ibos still empty, but nevertheless protected and waiting for the Ibos to come back. I had a chance to talk to bank managers who assured me that money left behind by the Ibos was there ready for them upon their return.
What Nigeria wants now is all the help that we can give. When Berlin was


blockaded, Ernest Bevin conceived the airlift to relieve that city. We now need the same determination and spirit to send to Nigeria the supplies so urgently needed there. Food supplies we are told, are now going in and the most urgent supplies are medical personnel, means of communication, and transport. Failure to help now would be on the consciences of all of us for the future.
The House and the country must resolve that our main concerns are to help those who are now suffering from the civil war and to let Nigeria run her own affairs.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The House is grateful to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) for procuring this opportunity to debate this matter. It is also an improvement in our procedures that we can debate this matter much more quickly than we were able to do a year or so ago.
I should like to begin by paying tribute to General Gowon. His magnanimity and wisdom in the aftermath of the civil war have been quite remarkable. They contrast very favourably with the behaviour of some Europeans in similar situations.
This is not an inquest into the war. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) touched on the situation in Nigeria. They are important questions to be asked. There is the question about the ethics of European countries supplying arms in these circumstances. This war was won by a supply of arms from Britain, Russia and Egypt to Nigeria. There is also the question of how far we are prepared to maintain what was originally an imperial pattern in Africa.
There is the question, too, of the serious discrepancies between what some Ministers have told the House and what has been alleged in some newspapers about the supply of arms. I do not think that these are matters for investigation today. Today, we are concerned with relief and I want to deal primarily with immediate relief to ease the desperate situation.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone that from such inquiries as I have been able to make

that the Government have been too reassuring in their statements to the House. Even if we put the degree of suffering and starvation at the lowest estimate, it is quite appalling. Great doubt must remain as to what is happening in that country. Some questions have been raised about the figures, particularly with regard to paragraph 12 of Lord Hunt's Report. I, too, want to ask some questions about these figures, although I am not quite certain why the right hon. Member found the first and second sentences in that section so wholly at variance.
As I understand, in the first sentence Lord Hunt is referring to those in dire need and saying that he cannot tell us how many there may be, and in the second sentence he is referring to those who were receiving relief. It is on the second point that my information differs from what is stated there. I am told that about 4 million people were receiving relief. If it is true that now within the Biafran enclave there is much less than that, what has happened to the balance? If they are not there—this is not a reason for congratulation, but for anxiety—they may have gone into the bush.
My second series of questions relate to what the Minister has told us this afternoon. He said that 1,500 tons of food have already been distributed. It would be useful to the House, in gauging the success of this operation, to know at what rate it is considered food ought to be distributed to allay the famine that undoubtedly exists. Is 1,500 tons up on the target?

Mr. Foley: If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening to me he would have heard that the target was 4,000 tons a week. They distributed 1,500 tons in the first week and are working towards the target of 4,000 tons per week.

Mr. Grimond: I am sorry if I misunderstood the Minister, to whom I listened. I had it down that 1,500 tons had so far been distributed, which he confirms, and that the rate of distribution was to be higher. That, however, is not an answer to my question.
Is this a satisfactory rate? This must be relevant when we are talking about starvation. Some of the figures that the Minister has given and which are given in the Hunt Report about transport are


similarly open to question. I think that he said that 40 four-ton lorries had so far been sent to the forward areas and that there were another 50 Land Rovers, and 70 four-ton lorries, of which seven have been sent and three are to follow. Are these figures satisfactory? I know that they are what the Nigerian Government asked for, but it would be useful to know whether they are part of a much larger consignment supplied by other countries, or what the total situation is.
The same is true with doctors and nurses. When my right hon. Friend asked about drugs, which are extremely important, I cannot say that he got a very specific answer. The House is entitled to know whether we now have a firm order for a specified quantity of drugs and, if so, whether this is being met. I have been informed by a doctor working in the area that certainly a week or so ago they were wholly out of drugs. He suggested that it would certainly have been possible to have dropped drugs if it was impossible to get them there by lorry.
Lord Hunt says that it is a curious proposal that there should be an airlift in an area of the size we are discussing. However if there are no roads then it seems that this method of dropping drugs, which Las been raised in the House before, should certainly be considered.
Further, can we be told what is the position about Uli airstrip? Is it in use? There are many people who feel that if it can be used—and as its physical condition does not prevent this—that it should be used. The Government have said that they are giving £5 million to the Nigerian Government. I notice that in answer to a Question last Thursday it seemed that this is not an addition to the aid programme, but is coming out of the general aid programme.
I regret this and I hope that it is wrong. However the Answer seems to indicate chat it would not be additional amount. If this is so I do not think that the Home would feel that this is the most that Britain should do, bearing in mind her ties with and responsibilities to some extent, to this area.
The main burden of my speech is that even if the figures are taken at the minimum they are savage and serious. Rehabilitation and reconstruction will be of

the greatest urgency, but if there are diseased and starvation-ridden people to whom we owe a duty, because of our ties, no delay in helping which can be avoided should be tolerated. The newspaper Le Monde has said:
It is a sad commentary on this century of technical revolution and 2,000 years of Christianity that hundreds of thousands of civilians can die by starvation and the sword at two hours' flying time from the banqueting halls of Europe.
I cannot help feeling that if it was a question of destruction the whole efforts of technology would be turned towards achieving the aim. I would like to see the same urgency brought to bear on the problems of relief and construction. Only one good thing may emerge, and that is that we shall realise the endemic and appalling poverty and disease which afflict many parts of the world.
We get very roused in the aftermath of a war and this has been a very rousing, distressing situation. However, in between we accept all too easily the endemic troubles of areas with a very low standard of life. I hope that we shall hear more from the Government, making clear whether these measures are really effective and whether they are up to the needs facing us; and I also hope that in due course we shall debate the other lessons arising from this tragic affair.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I hope that this will be the last time that we will debate the internal affairs of Nigeria. It has become distressing to hear the patronising neo-colonialists from both sides of the House trying to tell the Nigerians what to do and how to do it, as though black people were always to be under instructions, either from the extreme Right wing or from the do-gooders of the extreme Left wing. That is not a combination I find very pleasing.
We have the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) saying that a Minister should have gone to Nigeria, insisted on them doing this, that and the other, telling them that they must use this airfield and not that airfield. We had my old friend the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) saying that because we had supplied arms to the Nigerian Government that gave us the right to tell them what to do.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Wyatt: I never heard my right hon. Friend, as Minister of Defence, when ordering arms from America, saying that that gave the Americans the right to interfere in our internal affairs.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Wyatt: I never heard him suggest that at the end of the war the American Government, who obviously much preferred Winston Churchill to Mr. Attlee, had the right to insist on the election of Mr. Churchill because they had given us arms and Lend-Lease.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my hon. Friend give way, or must we listen to these irrelevancies? What I said in my intervention was that we had supplied arms to Nigeria which enabled them to win the war. All that we were asking was, because of the urgency about which everyone agrees, that we may use our influence with General Gowon to assist in the administration. It is administration that is required. That is all that I ask. The hon. Member seeks to indulge in irrelevancies about what I was thinking when I was Minister of Defence and he was my junior Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Wyatt: I must insist to my right hon. Friend that the parallel is exact. He ordered arms from America and would not in the least dream of their interfering with our affairs. He did not just say, "Let us use our influence in Nigeria." He said that we had the right to intervene. We have not got that right.
One of the great troubles in this whole affair has been the extraordinary bias shown by some of the media of communication, in particular, the B.B.C. and to a lesser extent the I.T.V. They have continually painted General Ojukwu as a hero and General Gowon as a villain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense".] They have weighted all their selection of material to present the Nigerian Government in the worst possible light and the rebels in the best possible light.
I believe that this has been a serious matter. The public have been misled to such a great degree by the people who have those instruments in their hands that we should now consider setting up a Television Council on the lines of the

Press Council, so that one may make complaints not merely to the chairmen of the authorities who run television, but to an independent body which can adjudicate on them.
I have complained to Lord Hill and I was told by him that he sees no bias in the B.B.C. programmes. All I can say is that that must be the reason there is so much bias, if he cannot see any. For example, on the "24 Hours" programme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with the relief".] I know that it is a complete novelty to many of my hon. Friends to hear a fair-minded account of events in Nigeria, but they should not be so horrified as to try to prevent me from giving one.
On "24 Hours", directly after the fall of the rebel cause, we had Mr. Dimbleby—who is by no means as impartial as his father was—presenting on the Monday a programme which almost entirely consisted of people attacking the Nigerian Government. He had one person from the Save the Children Fund who had been there a week before and who was giving high praise to what the Nigerian Government authorities were doing and what the Nigerian Army was doing. But he was cut short and double the amount of time was given to a relief worker who had not been to Nigeria for two years to discuss again the horrors of starvation, and so on, as if it was in some way the Nigerian Government's fault.
We had the B.B.C. all that week not merely in the programme saying that there were 15,000 tons of food at Sao Tomé, 10,000 tons somewhere else outside Nigeria, and so on, as if that was part of the problem of relief when it never was; and that the Nigerian Government were refusing it. There was always plenty of food in Nigeria, but the problem was to get it by road and distribute it to the people who needed it. It was not a problem of using Uli airfield, because the organisation which had been distributing supplies from Uli had completely collapsed and vanished and there was no point in dropping food on to an empty airfield when there was no one to deal with it there. It was more sensible to do what the Nigerian authorities were trying to do.
The reporters who recorded last week, with a high degree of unanimity, the


horror stories which we read in the Press last Thursday recorded, I am sure, exactly what they saw. I do not impugn any dishonesty or inaccuracy to any of them. But they looked for the bad things. They did not look for the good things. For example, they did not look at the camp for 35,000 refugees, described by Sir Colin Thornley, which was being run by two Ibos and where everyone has been fed in a remarkable and efficient manner.
It was very strange that most of the reporters, during their 12-hour tour, saw the same incidents because we had the same incidents over and over again in each different newspaper. The only balanced account that I saw was in the Financial Times, where credit was given for the good things which the Nigerian authorities had done as well as for the unfortunately bad.
I believe that these reporters went in there either very prejudiced and determined to find the bad things because they had all been supporting the rebel cause, or that they were exceptionally naïve. One cannot go into an area just after it has been devastated by a civil war and expect to see the area run like a Butlin's holiday camp. That would be naive arid foolish. I think that the real explanation is prejudice, because the Press, as well as the B.B.C., has, on the whole, departed very much from its normal fair standards of accuracy and reporting.
There have been some honourable exceptions such as Colin Legum in the Observer, the Sunday before last, who alone described the terrible prison conditions in which Colonel Ojukwu's past opponents had been kept. We have not heard much about that from Colonel Ojukwu's fans in this House. We had fairness in the Financial Times as well. The Press is very quick to criticise other people, but it is very quick and very sensitive to resent any criticism directed at it in turn.

Mr. Shinwell: What is my hon. Friend talking about?

Mr. Wyatt: I am trying to be fair-minded. I know that it is an attitude which is foreign to my right hon. Friend, but it may be possible for others of us to try to be balanced in this matter.
The Press is over-sensitive when it is attacked itself. It immediately starts

crying, "Freedom of the Press", or "Censorship", and all that kind of rubbish. But there is no reason to suppose that Lord Hunt, Sir Colin Thornley and the international observers who went for much longer and deeper into the area were more wrong than the reporters, who went on a brief, 12-hour visit without much experience of the situation at all.
It is remarkable and disturbing how the Press and television have fallen for little pressure groups and propaganda put out by them—by Markpress and other organisations all this time. Indeed, they behave as though the Federal Government had no right to win the war and they are dismayed that the end has occurred and think that the Federal Government ought to be punished because they have won the war.
I fear that one of the main causes of this has been the Roman Catholic missionaries in the Biafran area who have been putting out this propaganda which is sometimes believed by the Pope. It was only when another good Roman Catholic—the Minister—went to see the Pope and put him straight on some matters that there was a change. I am glad that His Holiness—and I hope that I have got his title right—then issued a very different statement the Sunday following from the one he issued the previous Sunday.
I fear that some of the organs of information have been in the hands of Roman Catholics. It is a serious matter. It does not seem to me to be any conicidence that the Director-General of the B.B.C. is a Roman Catholic—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] And it does not seem to me to be a coincidence that the Editor of The Times is a Roman Catholic.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member ought to join Paisley.

Mr. Wyatt: The Editor of The Times has run a very different policy in his paper from that which has been run by the Sunday Times, whose editor does not happen to be a Roman Catholic. The Editor of the Sunday Times has maintained throughout an objective and consistent reporting of the situation which has not been shown by The Times.

Mr. Winnick: Baseless and disgraceful.

Mr. Wyatt: I wish that my hon. Friend would not get so angry. I have had to listen to an awful lot of rubbish from him in the past.
Even this morning, The Times put the Hunt Report at the bottom of page 4, compressing the 8,000 words of that report into an 800-word tendentiously selected and slanted account of what the report says. It puts it under a sneering headline, "Optimistic Hunt", as though the man was off his head. The Times is supposed to be a paper of historical record. In the ordinary way, it publishes very nearly in full, if not in full, all Government White Papers. But, because of its prejudice—here is another example of it today—against the Nigerian Government, it once again plays unfair and dirty this morning.
Newspapers have enjoyed themselves during the past few days publishing pictures of a wedding party which took place in Port Harcourt, I think, with people drinking champagne, side by side with pictures of starving children. Is it the suggestion that no further weddings are to take place in Nigeria until relief has been completed? Is it the suggestion that in the vast majority of the country, the life of which was never disrupted, people are not to eat and drink or perform their natural functions any more?
I do not notice people in London who are so very keen on supporting the Biafran cause reducing their consumption of champagne. Yet this is the kind of tendentious and unfair reporting which one sees in the newspapers, as though the Nigerian Government were swilling away, eating the fatted calf and drinking champagne which ought to go to the starving children. If one gives champagne to starving children, the result will not be very good, anyway.
All this sneering and interference—[An HON. MEMBER: "Disgusting."] I agree; this kind of reporting is disgusting. By such juxtaposition to suggest that in some way the Nigerian Government are merrymaking and using food and drink which should go to starving children is extremely unfair. All this sneering and interference is greatly resented in Nigeria. Nigerians are sick to death of our debating their affairs and telling them what to do.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Why is my hon. Friend debating them, then?

Mr. Wyatt: Because I am trying to answer some of the silly things which are said.

Mr. Rose: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wyatt: No, I will not give way again.
This sort of interference will not help aid. We shall only put up the backs of the Nigerian authorities. It could create in their minds the attitude, "To hell with it and to hell with them. We shall not do anything about aid". That would be the attitude if it were not for the fact that General Gowon is a remarkable man, a great statesman, a generous and magnanimous person who is obviously filled with far more Christian principles than most of those who attack him. He has done his utmost from the start to end the war, to send mercy flights into Biafra, which were refused by his opponents, to feed his enemies while the war was on, and at once to rush relief to the front.
We know that there are cases of rape and looting. There always are at the end of a civil war. What about the Germans and the Russians in Europe at the end of the last war, only a few years ago? How well have we behaved quite often in Ireland? None of us can say that we have a perfect record in these matters. What surprises me is not the amount of indiscipline, but how little there has been, considering that there was a scratch Army built up from a few thousands to 100,000 in a couple of years. We should try to offer a bit of congratulation to the Nigerian authorities and encourage them in what they are doing.
Never before has relief come in this way from the victorious in a civil war. It certainly did not come in the American civil war, when the carpetbaggers were sent in to exploit and to destroy the opposition. Should we not remember that only in 1947, when partition took place in India, and we were responsible for that, millions of people starved and were slaughtered as a result of our action? We have nothing to be proud of in these matters. Even during the war itself, in the Bengal famine, when the British administration was in control of Bengal, 2 million people were destroyed, starving in the streets of Calcutta and other towns of Bengal. It is not for us to take a holier than thou attitude, ticking


off the Nigerians because in two weeks from the end of a war they have not cured the malnutrition which takes months to remedy in its victims.
I make one respectful suggestion to General Gowon, without in any way wishing to interfere in the affairs of Nigeria. He has achieved such a high standing in the world as a result of his conduct of the war and his behaviour since that I am sure that, if he could feel able to visit the particular rebel areas now recaptured by his troops, going there to see far himself and to reassure anyone who may still be in doubt among the Ibos by his presence there, this could, I believe, do more than anything to allay anxiety and raise the prestige of himself and his Government. I do not suggest that he has not many other things to do in Lagos in organising to remove the chaos at the end of civil war, but I think that, if he could do that, he would find that it would pay very good dividends indeed, both in world opinion and among the people now restored to one Nigeria.
For our part, let us offer all the help we can, with lorries, transport, medical supplies, and so on, but let us stop telling the Nigerians how to deal with their own situation. Quite apart from damaging the cause of the starving by this unwarranted interference, all the carping is harmful to Britain. I do not deny, and I have never denied, that there are great British interests in Nigeria. We supported the Federal Government partly because of those great British interests, but we had a just cause, and they had a just cause. We put our trust in men whom we thought honourable and who have proved to be honourable. Let us not throw away the advantage of being good friends, as we have been, over two and a half years, by becoming superior white critics of supposed black incompetence.
We should remember that only France, Portugal, South Africa and Rhodesia wanted the break-up of Nigeria. They wanted it because they wanted Nigeria to split into small parts, and other States in Africa to go the same way, because the more weak, feeble and defenceless African States there are the better For those four countries.
That cannot be in our interest. It cannot be in the interest of Africa. Even the Russians—this ought to appeal to some of my hon. Friends—have behaved

correctly in this matter. There seems to me to be no reason why we should behave less correctly and make enemies in Lagos, where we now have friendship and where, if we make enemies, we cannot provide the necessary influence to assist and speed the relief.
I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having stood steadily by a sound, wise and humane policy in the face of some very ill-informed criticism and of distorted reports against them throughout by most of the media of public communications.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), for I agree almost entirely with every word he said. I shall, perhaps, put my endorsement in a somewhat less colourful way, but we greatly enjoyed his contribution. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that this will be the last debate we shall have in the House on Nigeria. I must frankly say that I think it a mistake to be debating it again today at all. I believe that it gives us the worst of both worlds.
We irritate the farmers, who are justifiably concerned about their position, and who may well resent having their debate on agriculture relegated to the last four hours of the day. Also, we run the risk, perhaps, of irritating the Government of Nigeria by seeming to interfere yet again in their affairs. I think that this is the seventh time we have debated Nigeria since the civil war began. I very much doubt whether any other Parliament in the world has debated this problem half as often, although the same humanitarian feeling exists in other countries just as it does here.
As the Under-Secretary of State reminded us in his opening speech, Nigeria is an independent sovereign country. Continually to offer our advice, and often our moral strictures, on how she should have conducted this war and, now, on how she should organise relief and rehabilitation, must often make it appear to her as though we still regard her paternalistically, almost as a colony for which we have some special responsibility. General Gowon has shown again and again that he is a humane and statesmanlike leader of very unusual magnanimity, but I should not blame him if he resented the


fact that we are again apparently interfering in Nigeria's conduct of her own affairs this afternoon.
I regard this whole debate as a psychological error, and as counter-productive in its possible effects. Presumably we are having the debate because of newspaper reports of the situation in "Biafra". There is a certain amount in what the hon. Member for Bosworth said, but I do not go quite as far as he did in criticising these reports. I do not think that they are actually untrue; but it is the very essence of journalism to single out the sensational and then to highlight it. A quiet success story is very seldom publicised because it is thought not to be news. But, if anything goes wrong, it gets large headlines and maximum coverage.
I do not think that any of the stories that we have seen in the newspapers have been fabricated, or even much exaggerated, but I do think that the impression which they give, that particular incidents of rape, looting and starvation are typical of the whole picture in the former enclave, is a very misleading one indeed. I should much prefer to accept the report of Lord Hunt, himself a humane and experienced observer, because he has no axe to grind at all and no motivation, except to report the truth and the picture as a whole as he and Sir Colin Thornley and others have personally seen it. It is, therefore, important that hon. Members should resist the temptation to highlight this tragic situation and make it appear worse than it is.
Those who talked for so long about genocide, and who have now had to eat that word, are the last people in the world to criticise General Gowon and his Government today. We all want the food and medical supplies to get into the Ibo heartland as quickly as possible. We all feel deeply about those who may be dying of starvation at this very moment, but this debate is not the best way to help them. The best way to help them, as the Government are doing, is to send the supplies, especially the trucks, for which the Federal Government have asked.
We cannot, from this House of Commons, organise the Nigerian relief work. If we try to do so by our advice

it will not only be ineffective, but will lead—and is now leading—to justified resentment, just, indeed, as we would have strongly resented outside interference in the troubles in Ulster last summer. My view is that Her Majesty's Government are doing all that they can do in this situation, and I believe that the House of Commons is mistaken to advise and moralise on a matter which it cannot influence except for the worse.
The 3rd Division has now been withdrawn from most of the enclave, and the better-disciplined 1st Division has taken over. Individual soldiers have been punished for their excesses which, as other hon. Members have said, have taken place in the aftermath of victory in European wars as well as in Nigeria. I have myself seen such incidents in Europe, committed not by the best units, but by the worst, of which I was greatly ashamed.
As the Under-Secretary of State said, there is no lack of food in Nigeria. The problem is simply to organise the transport of it, especially to the worst affected areas like Owerri, and we cannot do that from the House of Commons. Obviously, it would be wrong to be complacent. Clearly, there is still much to be done, and many lives to be saved, but there has been no massacre of the Ibos, as was predicted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and others in this House, and there has been no spirit of revenge.
On the contrary, it is clear that the Federal authorities are trying their best to organise relief as quickly as possible. We can help from outside by sending trucks, drugs, and medical supplies, but we shall help no one by dramatising the situation or by criticising the Federal effort. We must leave the organisation of relief to the Federal Government.
I agree very much with one of the last remarks made by the hon. Member for Bosworth, in his excellent speech. I endorse his suggestion because he and I make it as friends of Nigeria and as sincere admirers of General Gowon. I believe that General Gowon should consider personally visiting the East Central State as soon as possible to see the conditions there. I have absolute faith in his integrity, and in his good will towards the Ibo people. I am sure that


if there are organisational defects or shortages he will be more anxious than anyone to put them right, and that he will do so with a sense of urgency, particularly if he has seen them for himself.
In my view, it is not for us to carp and criticise in this House. It is for General Gowan, as he has done hitherto, and will I am sure continue to do, to lead the way in his own country.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: What worries me about the present situation is the lack of discussion which there seems to have been between Britain and Nigeria before the end of the war about the kind of help which we could provide in the present situation. We may have had our own plans in this country, but there does not appear to have been much prior discussion with Nigeria, for example about the kind of planes which could be used, whether they should he military planes, or whether they would have to be civilian planes. Nor was there any discussion about the rôle of the relief organisations, the use of Uli, and, most important of all how, in the short-term, to fill the gap which was bound to exist with the cutting-off of the Joint Church Aid airlift of food.
I do not accept that relief had to be left to Nigeria, and that we could only wait and do what we were asked to do. The situation was not as simple as that. It is now clear that British involvement in this war was far greater than has so far been admitted. If Ministers dispute the figures given in the Nigeria Trade Summary which has been widely quoted during the last week, let them put the record right and tell us that these figures are wrong. It appears that in 1968 500 armoured vehicles were shipped from the British Army of the Rhine via Belgium to Lagos, at nil cost to Nigeria, the only charge made being for carriage. With that kind of involvement, there must go responsibility. If Nigeria looked to us for the colossal military and diplomatic backing which she received, she must accept that we, too, have responsibilities in the aftermath. The interventions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on this matter were right.
The question before us today is whether the plans which the British Government

have, and the attitude which they have taken, adequately reflect those responsibilities. The Prime Minister's statement a week ago was reassuring, and it was widely accepted as such by many hon. Members, but on the key issue it gave very little information, indeed. The key issue was what was going to happen to the large number of people—surely it matters not whether it is 2 million or 4 million—who were concentrated in the area round Owerri, Orlu, and Uli following the cutting-off of the Joint Church Aid airlift which stopped on Saturday 11th January, and which prior to that date had been bringing in close on 300 tons of food a night.
Those hon. Members who have been to Biafra, as it was, who saw the scale of that Joint Church Aid airlift and who have seen the density of the population in the area, knew that this was the immediate problem. One accepts that there has been no genocide. That is a word which I have never used throughout this whole affair. One accepts all that one was told by the Prime Minister and others about what was being done in Port Harcourt, Enugu and round the periphery.
The key question, however—and surely this must have been foreseen; it is astonishing that it was not discussed with the Nigerians before the war ended—in the short term, in the first two weeks, which have now passed, was what would happen in the Owerri-Osrlu-Uli area if and when the Joint Church Aid airlift was cut off.
When the Biafran surrender took place, there were some of us—the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) was one, and I was another—who tried to bring home to the Government that this was the immediate, the only, question which mattered during that first week. That evidence was backed up by the reports of priests and relief workers who came out of Biafra on almost that last night when people got out—Saturday, 11th January.
The Government played down those fears. One understands the desire to give a reassuring account. The British Government's policy has been bitterly attacked throughout this whole affair and it will be argued about for a long time. Even by last Thursday, however, it was clear that very little food had gone into the Owerri-Orlu-Uli area. It is not the


point that the food was 50 miles away. If the food was not actually there, it could have been 500 miles away.
I believe that we could have taken, we should have taken, and we can still take a more robust attitude with the Nigerian Government about moving food efficiently into the area. The talk, of which we have heard so much today, about Nigeria's sovereignty and independence misses the point. Of course Nigeria is a sovereign, independent nation.

Mr. John Cordle: How would the hon. Member do it?

Mr. Barnes: Let me answer by putting this to the hon. Member. If Nigeria can be persuaded to accept Lord Hunt, to have Lord Hunt going round the country and producing his report, surely it would have been possible for the Prime Minister, together with the President of the United States, if need be, to do no more than urge, but to urge in no uncertain terms, that Britain and America should be allowed to help in mounting a more effective crash programme than has been mounted so far.
I believe that in international affairs the personal element is extremely important. If politicians are not prepared to use their personal influence when it could be decisive, they might just as well sit back and leave politics to diplomats, who are better at these routine exchanges. Risks are, of course, involved. There is always the risk of rebuttal if Britain and America had made such a request and urged this on General Gowon. This, however, was surely an instance when such a risk was worth taking.
I am not satisfied that enough was done by this country to bring aid to those who are suffering and I do not believe that our responsibilities in this matter have so far been adequately discharged. For me, the whole thing—the war and, now, the aftermath—in so far as it concerns us remains one of the most tragic episodes in which this country has ever involved itself overseas.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I am particularly glad to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Chis-

wick (Mr. Barnes). In spite of all that has been said in the Hunt Report, I feel that it is painfully obvious to anyone who has studied the reports in many different newspapers from so many journalists who have visited the area that the food is not getting in quickly enough. Other hon. Members have spoken briefly and I intend to concentrate shortly on this one point. The main concern must be not only to get food in but to bring out quickly those who are sick and the starving women and children, who are referred to with such compassion in paragraph 16 of the Hunt Report.
I feel that the Government have not paid enough attention to the suggestion put forward earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) that helicopters or light aircraft could be used to assist in this task. Here we are in the year 1970. We have terrific lift power. This is seen in places as far away as Vietnam. We know that the roads in the area are bad and overcrowded; the bridges have been damaged and it is impossible to put large trucks, as has been suggested, through in adequate numbers and bring out the sick and the injured.
Uli airport is in a state of disrepair. It is, however, possible for modern light aircraft to land on short unprepared strips. If helicopters cannot lift enough, I know that the aircraft are available. I refer particularly to the aircraft about which I got in touch with the Foreign Secretary, the Skyvan. This is an aircraft which is being used in similar rough conditions throughout the world in places as far away as Alaska and New Guinea. It has shown by its performance that it can carry a load of 5,000 1b. over a short distance of 100 miles, a distance ideally suitable for these conditions. It could land either in bad conditions at Uli or on any other unprepared strip.
I should particularly like the Minister to think of one aspect of this. The need is not only to bring in food and supplies, but also to bring in medical staff and medical supplies, to take them where they are needed and to ferry out those who are sick and injured. How better to bring out people who are critically ill, whose photographs we have seen in the Press and of whom we have read in the


report, than to carry them out by aircraft or helicopter, which is much better than taking them by lorries over bad roads? I suggest, therefore, that the Government should pay much more attention to the possibility of using the light aircraft which are available in this country.
I got in touch with the manufacturers of the aircraft which I have mentioned and I am told that up to 12 of them could be made available at short notice. The Government were not slow in making available British arms when they thought it wise, to bring the war to a quick end, that they should be supplied to the Nigerians. I suggest, as other hon. Members have done, that British light aircraft could be used to discharge the moral obligation that lies on this country to bring relief as quickly as possible to those who need it so desperately.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) is not in his place, because since his amazing speech the debate has taken an unusual turn. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expected this, but, save for one speech from the benches behind me in his support, no hon. Member who has spoken has not brought what I believe to be, in this delicate post-war situation with Lagos, a sensible balance of tone to the debate.
We all know it to be the fact that the war has finished. That is the important thing. Had it still been going on, possibly, according to some figures, anything up to 40,000 or, perhaps, 80,000 men, women and children could have been dead or dying during this short time. So let us give heartfelt thanks for this. Those of us who have been emotionally involved in this and deeply committed certainly do.
We have heard a lot about newspapers. Yesterday, the Sunday Times carried one of the best leading articles I have ever read. It said:
Anyone in the Commons debate tomorrow who seizes on the suffering to re-open the anti-Federal argument would be guilty of playing politics and outside politicking has bedevilled Nigeria enough.
Before I entered the Chamber, I took down from the tape the words of the

Government spokesman, a Minister whom some us know, in Lagos. I was not surprised to find that he said that a debate in this Chamber is an unwarranted interference in their internal affairs. I say again that I have been deeply committed and emotionally involved here. When I was a humble student long ago, I read in a book by George Trevelyan that "disinterested enthusiasm is one of the nobler attributes of a good citizen". I have certainly not been disinterested, but I can fairly claim that my motives have been worthy.
In their battle for existence against the secessionists of Eastern Nigeria, those of us who have known the Federal leaders are not surprised at the tributes paid today to General Gowon for his magnanimity, his honour, and indeed his whole behaviour in this difficult post-civil war period. He is the son of a well digger on the Central Plateau and was educated in Church Missionary Society schools. He is a seven-days-a-week Christian who does not go to church only on Sunday.
I fully understand and support his attitude to Uli Airport being used in the past by alien elements ferrying in certain materials of war by night. In any case, can that airport be used today? When the conflict finished, I understand that all the landing equipment was torn up, and the airstrip is useless today except for emergency crash landing. There is no sophisticated gear there. There are three good airports elsewhere: at Enugu, Harcourt, and Calabar. I accept that there are thousands of tons of stuff still waiting at San Tome to be ferried across to what was formerly the hinterland of "Biafra", but in this matter we should make an effort to understand the feelings of the Nigerian Government.
I was in Port Harcourt when the Marine Commando division was there, just before the junction town of Aba fell. Many of us know that the war could have finished at that time, over 12 months ago, but for the influence of the French with their arms aid—and the relief organisations also played their part. History will pass its judgment on this war. There was at this time a conflict of hawks and doves, but let us all thank Heaven that the war has now been finished, and that on television we all


saw Lt.-General Effiong embracing General Gowon at the peace talks.
I do not understand how people like Group Captain Cheshire and others, some even in this Chamber, can say that we should fly in supplies without Federal permission. This staggers me. In the '50s, when certain present-day dominions were then colonies, they had champions in this Chamber. Some of those hon. Members, like Fenner Brockway, are today in the Lords. Now that former colonies have become dominions and independent sovereign States, they apparently still need champions against some of the "neo-colonialists" we have on these benches.
The situation today is quite clear. There is plenty of food in Eastern Nigeria. The exercise is to get it to those poor refugees in need. How far has it to go? Anyone who knows the local terrain knows that no Ibo can be more than 20 miles from any stockpile of food—even ignoring any local cassava or yams in the bush just off the roadway. So we must get these foods to them.
In my weekend newspapers, I read both Lord Hunt's account and that of the international observers with him alongside the account of some Press reports. I do not believe that either is giving false witness. But I believe from my own knowledge of the situation that Lord Hunt has the overall picture correct. I would sooner believe Lord Hunt—I say this calmly, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt)—who does know Africa, than some journalists who have never been nearer to the bush than London Airport, but who nevertheless go on television and almost pillory a man like the noble Lord when asking him loaded questions.
I do not understand the motives of interviewers on the B.B.C. or I.T.V. who behave in this fashion. I have been on television trying to give my point of view in answer to some of these people. The most charitable thing that I can think is that some of these men had not been out to Africa before. Perhaps they do go out, stay in a Lagos hotel and then go to what was the battle zone. They have been born in Manchester or London and have European standards, and they judge

the bush by standards which have been acquired in Tooting Bec or Surbiton. This is completely out of order and most unfair to people living in a developing society.
What about the good deeds in the enclave? We have bandied the name of a certain Church across the Chamber today. I have perhaps said hard things about Caritas elsewhere, but I say here and now that 90 per cent. of the Irish Catholic missionaries and their helpers stayed behind with their flocks and did a service to their cloth and calling. They did and are still doing a wonderful job. There must be 500 or 600 of these Irish or other missionaries and Catholic workers doing this job. They stayed behind in what had been "Biafra", and a small percentage have gone on television to make propaganda against my Government, or the Lagos Government, and those trying to bind up the wounds in difficult conditions today in Eastern Nigeria.
I turn to this stuff that we are told about soldiers raping and looting. It has been said that the Federal Army was swollen from little over 8,000 in peace time—when Colonel Ojukwu himself was a distinguished member of the forces with General Gowon and General Hassim—to 104,000. Many of these are young men from the slums of Lagos and Ibadan and many have not been in the army so many weeks. Therefore, it is not unusual to find these cases of disorder—when fighting ceases.
Why do the journalists highlight this stuff, with pictures and all, to the exclusion of all else? General Gowon has pulled out and is pulling out any awkward units, of which there has been only one—perhaps two—in the Third Division. It has been pulled out at the first possible opportunity. Why is the good side not emphasised? Why do newspaper reporters think that they have a divine right to go into any State like Nigeria and ask any questions in any situation and come back to highlight the bad? This does a disservice to our democratic society and immense harm with Lagos at this time of post-war settlement. These men seem determined to paint as black a picture as possible. Indeed, some of them apparently get the freedom of the B.B.C., on "Panorama"


or "Twenty-Four Hours", to put their views before the public. I believe that the Lagos Government has had a bad deal here in public relations.
But God helps those who help themselves. The weakest feature of the Federal machine to my mind has been its information service. It has been quite bad. Maybe the Federal leaders thought that a just and honest cause would speak for itself. Maybe now they have discovered just how naive they have been in the face of the international media, television and newspapers. They have sometimes handled journalists tactlessly, but even if this were so, these journalists had only just left London, a developed society, for a developing one. Why cannot some of our Press people keep their heads, and try to give a square deal to Nigeria, even though they may have been disturbed and even embarrassed by a young information officer in Port Harcourt?
I would support one thing mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, in that I would welcome anything which led the Head of State to go east of the Niger to inspect these areas. I think I can say this without presumption, since many like me have been committed, in the last two or three years, and are now delighted that the war is finished and that thousands of lives are being saved each week.
Our job is now to help this potentially great nation, this sleeping giant of nearly 60 million people, to build for the future. There has been talk of the Hausas and many other tribes, and that this is a land of diverse peoples. I believe that they can all live together: if I did not, I would not believe in human nature. These African peoples are as good as and many of them are better than we are. They can live together, just as Europeans must live together. They need more charity in this House—and they deserve no less than that.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I appreciated very much the remarks of the hon. Member hon. Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), who virtually made my speech for me, better than I could have done myself. I also should like to congratulate the Government on their firm stand throughout this whole conflagration. Perhaps it is not quite

the right thing for one on this side to congratulate the Government, but there is no doubt that it is their firmness in handling the situation which has brought the war to a close. I am also glad that my party has been firmly behind the Government's line in this very difficult and terrible situation.
I suppose those of us who are constantly in and out of Nigeria appreciate the difficulties more than others. Whatever we suggest in the House this afternoon will make absolutely no difference to the good people in Nigeria. Hon. Members who go there will realise that they think it audacious on our part to hold such a debate this afternoon, and I suggest that it is audacity and a waste of time. We have heard enough of Nigeria.
My one plea is that we should leave Nigeria alone and let the Nigerians get on with their own work. They are fully aware of their duties. They understand perfectly what is required of them, especially as they deal with the problem of starvation. General Gowon throughout has shown an unswerving concern for the men and women of his country. When we pushed him to try to get on with the war and to finish it, he told us that his policy was clear—to minimise casualties by moving slowly. He said, "These people are my people. We do not want them to suffer."

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would the hon. Member explain what he means by "we" in that statement?

Mr. Cordle: Those of us anywhere who have at heart the interests of Nigeria as a whole. We know—my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) fully appreciates this—that the viability and the prosperity in peace of Nigeria will remain only if Nigeria is one. That has been the underlying motive of the Federal Government throughout and it is a policy which we should follow.
There is little more that I should say, because the case has been put so well from both sides of the House this afternoon. I hope that we shall not again be bedevilled, as we have been bedevilled in the several debates in the House—and I hope that this is the last—by more exaggeration from the Press and by more inaccurate information and hoodwinking of the public by thoroughly disreputable public relations people both in this


country and outside. I recommend to the House that they leave Nigeria alone and trust General Gowon, who is running a sovereign State and running it well.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: While I sympathise with the objectives of the arguments of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), I cannot associate myself with one argument which he advanced. In view of our involvement in the crisis in Nigeria—and the degree of that involvement has been spelt out by several hon. Members—it seems to me clear that we have a right and a responsibility to discuss the issue in the House if we so wish. Those of us who understand the Federal position must nevertheless be permitted to make this observation to our friends and Commonwealth colleagues in Lagos; it is our feeling of responsibility and concern for their problems which have led us in the best sense to discuss and review this situation.
May I take up two points made by my parliamentary colleague and great personal friend, the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes)? He argued that because of the degree of military support which we have given to the Federal Government we have a responsibility in the aftermath of the war which we must exercise fully. He also argued that because of the degree of military support which we have given them, the Federal Government must accept that we have this responsibility and must be willing to listen to the arguments which we wish to put forward about the organisation of relief.
Looking objectively at the events since the end of the war, I cannot see his grounds for criticism. It seems to me that no Government have been more actively involved in demonstrating their sense of responsibility and that the Nigerians could not have been more willing to listen to the various emissaries who have been sent from London or to the arguments which they have advanced about the organisation of relief.
One of the tragedies about the Nigerian crisis while it has lasted—and it has lasted far too long—is that there has been an unfortunate and over-

simplified polarisation of the argument. Often people who have taken largely the Biafran point of view and others who have taken largely the Federal point of view have not been as far apart as might sometimes have seemed in the debates in the House. No one will under-estimate—indeed, no one has under-estimated this afternoon—the scale of the disaster, dislocation and suffering during and immediately after this dreadful civil war, but in some ways it is surely rather sordid to become pre-occupied, as some commentators have become preoccupied, with equations about total numbers or proportions of the population in dire straits. If a child dies a lingering death from malnutrition or untreated wounds, he is a child who was in desperate need. It makes little difference whether that child is one of 10 or one of 10,000. We ought to be concerned with each case. It casts doubt on our integrity, in view of our self-claimed civilised values, if we are not so concerned.
The response by the Press, by volunteers and in public opinion as a whole in terms of cash and of Government assistance has been impressive. What we have seen in the aftermath of the war has demonstrated the values of British life at their best. But if we recognise the scale of the problem in terms of individual tragedies, we must think through the problem logically, and we must avoid the arrogance of assuming that those more intimately involved, on the spot, do not share our degree of concern. There is plenty of evidence that those on the spot in the Federal Government share our concern at least as strongly as we have expressed it in the House this afternoon.
We have seen an example of compassion—this has been said already today but I want to reinforce it—on the part of the Federal leaders, and a desire for reconciliation, perhaps unrivalled by European nations such as our own in the aftermath of wars to which we have been parties.
Both the Federal Government and ourselves want to see effective immediate relief. To be effective it must be coordinated. As my hon. Friend said in opening the debate, however well-meaning the enthusiasm, without such co-ordination there would be anarchy, and in some respects the results might


be counter-productive. Quantity is not the only issue in a desperate situation such as this. Organisation and the means to cope, and the absorbtive capacity of the administration at ground level, are at least as important. If we are being logical, objective and honest with ourselves, we must admit that the only effective co-ordination which can be achieved, without establishing what would in effect amount to a complex international colonial régime, is through the existing administrative structure provided by the Federal Government.
Moreover, in the long run reconstruction and development will be every bit as important in terms of the life, death and health of the Ibo people as the immediate relief operation. To achieve that reconstruction on a sustained basis, the responsibility must clearly be with the Federal Government. Our continuing rôle will be to work with the Federal Government and through them for years to come on the basis of the effective co-operation which is now established.
There is one other argument at which we must look carefully. It was mentioned briefly during Questions the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). It is that simply because of the degree of passion and bitterness which has existed in the civil war, if there is to be a hope of a stable future for Federal Nigeria it is essential that the Federal Government should be the authority now which demonstrates its willingness, determination and ability to cope with the dreadful problems which we have been discussing.
Some harsh remarks have been made about mass communications—radio, television and the Press. I pick up a point which was made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). As one who has consistently advanced the importance and relevance to British politics of a commitment to overseas aid and development, I have found one of the most nauseating aspects of the Press reporting in the last few weeks to be the way in which some newspapers which have never missed an opportunity for a snide comment at the principle of overseas aid and development have been so ambitiously promoting their sales with stories of horror, of children in distress, of suffering individuals and of disease.
Whatever the causes of these problems—and every hon. Member has been moved by what we have seen—they are not unique. I could take the individual journalists, who have been writing with such sincerity, to many other areas of the world, where they will see exactly the same thing. The plea which I make is that if we can learn anything from the traumatic experience through which the world and the people of Nigeria have passed, it is that we should make a general commitment to provide more aid.
Some journalists have been writing with a wonderful sense of dedication. Let them take the sense of dedication in which they have been writing, take this sense of commitment, and recognise that what we are fighting is a problem of suffering and horror which we must fight with equal resolve whatever its specific causes wherever it occurs, not only in Nigeria.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby: There have been two main themes to the debate. One has concerned the attitude of the mass media and the reaction of hon. Members to their reports and the other has been our view on the degree to which this debate infringes the sovereignty of the Nigerian Government.
I share some of the disquiet which has been expressed about some of the reports received through the mass media. At the same time, we must recognise that the Press has a rôle to point an uncomfortable finger when it sees disagreeable things. Sometimes there is not sufficient time to paint the whole picture, and I think that there has been a grave lack of perspective in some Press reports.
I should like to think that improved communications made it easier for nations today to understand each other's problems, but the fact is that the half-truth of the camera and the headlines are making it more and not less difficult for us to improve our international relations. To that extent I regret the nature of the coverage which much of the mass media has carried on this subject.
The second question concerns the sovereignty of Nigeria. When I looked at the Order Paper I found it hard to see what useful purpose this debate could serve. The terms of the Motion seem to suggest the degree of intervention in the internal affairs of another country which


we should not support. To an extent, the hon. Members for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Rudd) and Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) took a different view. They thought that the degree of our involvement in arms supply left us a residue of responsibility which we could not altogether avoid.
To my mind, the situation changed as soon as the war ended. Up to the end of the war, our supply of arms to the Nigerian Government, meeting requests which they made to us, was a legitimate cause of debate in the House. Every time we debated the subject we were asking ourselves whether we should say "Yes" to these requests, which were directly concerned with the pursuit of a military ending to a civil war. I thought that we were right to say "Yes" because for all the suffering caused by war and the events leading up to it, I can see nothing but further suffering, greater chaos and more strife coming from the dismemberment of Nigeria, which might well have been the case if we had not granted support.
Now the war is over, and in that sense the position has changed. The fact that we said "Yes" to requests for arms during the war does not mean that we are in duty bound to state our views about the terms of the resettlement in Nigeria. If we are asked for aid and relief we can do our best, as our conscience will direct, to meet those requests. But there is no connection between any answers to requests for relief now and the response which we gave earlier to different requests.
The immediate tasks for Nigeria now are relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction, and afterwards will come a political settlement which the Nigerians themselves will be discussing. All these tasks are for them, not for us, to decide, and they themselves have made crystal clear that they honourably accept the responsibility of trying as generously as possible to arrive at a reunited country of Nigeria. If that is so, we can do nothing but harm in suggesting, to the Ibos especially, that credit for generosity belongs here, or with the Pope, or with anyone else, and not with the Federal Government, who are trying to bind the country together. We would do well to remember that fact in the cause of constructive peace making.
In those circumstances, what, if anything, is left for us to do? I turn to

the two points that have been mainly covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). The first is to offer—and I emphasise the word "offer"—to supply as quickly as possible as much help as the Nigerians may immediately need for the relief of suffering. Medical supplies, medical personnel and transport have been the main items emphasised. To those I would add, if wanted, administrative personnel.
The second is to offer—and again I emphasise that word—through diplomatic channels, which are very much less public than political channels, advice on ways and means of dealing with the very difficult administrative problems, again should the Nigerian Government ask for such help. The administrative problems are mainly those of resettlement and training and they present the most difficult task which the Federal Government have to resolve. The second stage of rehabilitation is putting people back into jobs. Jobs have been filled and there will be this further problem resulting from demobilisation.
We should also do our best to look after the interests—and this is not dishonourable—of our own nationals of whom there are, perhaps, 15,000. We can best serve their interests by stopping the reading of lectures to the Federal Government, by offering help, by identifying our minds with their problems, and, when asked, by helping to solve them. For the rest, if we could understand their problems and look at them in this way, we should congratulate General Gowon on his magnanimity and, beyond that, mind our own business.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I have been anxious to take part in this debate because I have so far broadly supported the Government's policy in this tragic civil war. I voted for the Government when we last divided on this subject. What I was particularly anxious about was that this present debate should not be merely a continuation of speakers on the two sides: those, on the one side, who throughout the three years have supported the Lagos Government and have identified themselves with them and, on the other side, those who have broadly supported the pro-Biafra cause. That is not the issue today. I am very critical


of those of my hon. Friends who have spent so much time in merely repeating their reasons for supporting General Gowon and the Lagos Government, because all that became wholly irrelevant the moment the fighting finished.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby), with whom I shall disagree very sharply in a moment, found me during the last debate in constant approval of what he then said, because it was common sense. But because he was then so much supporting our Government's policy, I am quite at a loss to hear him say now, in this tragic situation, that the moment the fighting finished we had no further responsibility.
The House must know that our involvement was not confined only to the supply of arms, but went much deeper. We had time and again, through Government spokesmen in this Chamber, and outside, supported and approved the general conduct of the Lagos Government. We were politically identified with the conduct of affairs by the Lagos Government. It would be monstrously unfair now to suggest that we have no continuing responsibility, and that those who argue that we have are introducing an attitude of neo-colonialism. I have found it amusing that several hon. Members should accuse me, of all people, of adopting a neo-colonial approach. It is not worthy of the tragic situation that so many people still face. I therefore hope that the Government will understand that I confine myself quite deliberately to points dealing with relief from the moment the fighting finished.
The House is entitled to a clear view of the facts. I believe that the stories we have heard out of Lagos have been far too optimistic. The House has a right to examine some of the political reasons for relief not having started more quickly.
I start with a point to which I attach the greatest importance, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), and that is the use of Uli Airport. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, with the best intentions in the world, keeps on saying that there are 13,000 tons of food in the country not very far from the area concerned; yet we have the reports in the world Dress. I have here that most respec-

table Zurich newspaper the Nene Zuercher Zeitung of last Friday, when these 13,000 tons of food had been lying about for the time suggested, saying without qualification that it was the assumption of monopoly in relief by the Lagos Government which made all the more difficult the relief which should have started within two or three days of the end of the fighting.
It is quite clear that if even a few days after the fighting had finished permission could have been obtained to use Uli airport there would within a week have been a situation completely different from that which now obtains. There is food on the other side of the border and in other parts between Lagos and the area most affected; yet it has not been possible to take it where it was most needed in the fortnight which has since passed.
I want to put on record, because our Press has been mentioned as being biased, a neutral voice, a Swiss voice, and a voice that cannot be suspected of taking a particular viewpoint. I have the report of the Lagos correspondent of this very respectable Swiss journal. I shall make a free translation as I go along; so it cannot be perfect. It states:
One can see on the airport at Uli no signs of destruction. It would have been possible to start operations there, but we have officially been given the argument by the Lagos authorities that Uli cannot be used because it is not an airport which belongs to the Federal Army or the Federal Air Force.
So it seems that the possibility of using this airport has nothing to do with efficiency. The reason given is a purely political reason.
When, last Thursday afternoon, I disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the reasons for Uli not being used he said that I was unusually ill-informed, but an hour before he said that, his own representative, Lord Hunt, had given a Press conference. I checked on the timing, and that Press conference was held just an hour before my right hon. Friend and I had our exchanges. This is the report of what Lord Hunt said about Uli Airport:
Nigerians are too sensitive to memories of Uli as an arms supply centre of Biafra during the war.


Lord Hunt claimed that with every day that passed the situation gets better. He went on:
I suggested to the Federal authorities to use Uli airstrip to fly in relief supplies from the key areas but I was unsuccessful. It was a political decision".
That is Lord Hunt saying that it was a political decision.
Who was ill-informed? The Government, or those of us who made the same point as was made by Lord Hunt? It is monstrous that there should be any attempt to play down what is a clear fact of life: that on purely political grounds an airport that could have been put right in 48 hours to receive airborne supplies has not been put right, and is not being put right even today.
I move from that to an American view. The London correspondent of the New York Times, Mr. Anthony Lewis, who has been accredited for his newspaper in London for many years, is probably known to a number of hon. Members. He was interviewed yesterday on the radio. According to reports in other newspapers he is the only one who has seen both areas to the south and east of Uli Airport. He said categorically that what is urgently needed is supplies directly east and south of Uli Airport. He underlined the point which the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone and I have been making for a fortnight, that the airport should be used and that could solve a large part of the problem.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Mr. Mendelson: I do not think so. We are nearing the end of the debate, and the Government must have time to make a full reply.
The Swiss newspaper that I have mentioned also reports a point which has not been made so far. People were appalled when they saw on television a hospital where 50 children were congregated. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary well knows, I do not charge the Government with lack of information. I did not do so on Thursday, and I do not do so today. But, as he well knows, there were reports about one or two hospitals reaching the Government. The Government did not waste time in trying to get the

latest information from hospitals in the area concerned.
What has not yet been reported here is, according to this same Swiss newspaper, that the tragedy was made greater because when some of the Federal troops reached the hospital the doctors and the nurses were separated from their patients. Otherwise it would be inexplicable that there were so many children and only three nurses there. It is not correct, as has been implied, that all the people doing relief work and missionary work remained. Only a few remained. According to the Swiss journal, they were forcibly separated from their patients. These are the facts of the situation, and they have nothing to do with any view one takes about the desirability of the Federal Government being seen to do the job of reconciliation. Of course, everyone agrees about that.
It is the bounden duty of our Government, who have been so closely identified with the political as well as the military effort of the Lagos Government, to say openly, "We accept that there is a job which you are trying to do. We also have some responsibility, and we are urging you now to agree that this airport should be reopened". The Lagos Government have already agreed with the American Government on the use of two other airports. The Government in Lagos are not a monolithic group who will not listen to advice from its own ranks or from other quarters. I do not agree with those who lecture us and say that the worst thing the House can do is to give advice to the Lagos Government. Our Government are not beyond receiving advice sometimes, and Governments abroad are not beyond receiving advice.
I was sorry that both Lord Hunt and U Thant made such easy statements in Lagos after the limited infomation which they received. Our Government have not only a right but a duty to listen to the view of many people in this country. They do not necessarily represent the same view as that expressed in this debate, when speeches may be made on one side of the subject and not necessarily on the other.
Many people in this country are deeply disturbed about events particularly since the fighting finished. It is a question not of propaganda but of things which


people see with their own eyes through the modern means of communication. The Government ought to respond to this debate by advising the Government of Lagos of the general reaction to their views and that Uli Airport ought to be opened urgently. Food should be flown in directly to Uli from both sides—from outside on the one hand, where food is rotting away, and from within Nigeria where food stocks have accumulated—to help the relief organisation there in the afflicted area. This should be speeded up, and we should urge the Federal Government to approve this operation.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The remarks by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) I think adequately summed up the view of those who pressed for this debate. The notice of Motion given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) carried an implied criticism of the Lagos Administration. I disagree entirely with what the hon. Member said at the beginning of his remarks, since I believe that it is certainly right and proper that tonight we should once again give full support to General Gowon and his Government.
The trouble about this debate is that many hon. Members who have spoken against the Government's attitude and actions have had a desire to tell the Lagos Government what to do. We are talking about a young, independent, sovereign nation which is trying desperately to deal with a very tragic problem. It will not make the solution of that problem any easier if dictatorial lectures come from this House of Commons. We certainly must give advice, and we must give help, but we ought not to order or command.
I do not want to rake up the past, but the war which has just ended was not a war of the Federal Government's choosing. They asked us, as a loyal member of the Commonwealth, for help. I believe it was as a result of British help that the war was brought to a much earlier conclusion than some wiseacres predicted it would be. It came to such a speedy conclusion that even the most highly organised Government could have found itself caught off balance. The speed at which the Federal Nigerian Gov-

ernment have been able to react to the problem of a war which literally collapsed overnight is remarkable.
It is untrue and wrong to suggest, as some hon. Members have done, that no real contingency planning was done. I was in Nigeria recently, travelling from Kano in the North right through Lagos to Port Harcourt and most other major centres, and I saw the work going on then to prepare for peace. I saw the Abandoned Property Commission, which was looking after property abandoned by Ibos who had gone off to the war, I saw refugee camps and the work being done for rehabilitation, I saw the planning of supplies of food and other planning which was actually going on while I was there. I was not shown this merely as shop-window propaganda. I was enabled to meet military governors from all over the country who were helping with this work. It is quite wrong to suggest that the Nigerian Government were caught off balance in their contingency planning.
I believe that General Gowon is so confident that what he is doing is right that he may have been led immediately after the war was over to arrange for a visit by the Press and other individuals to see the situation for themselves. This was not the action of a man trying to hide something, but the action of a man doing his best to deal with the situation and wanting the outside world to see how it was being dealt with. I was hardly surprised that he was disappointed by the reaction of some experienced journalists and others to the work going on. I never saw a photograph showing the story of compassion and success in the campaign of help in the ex-Biafran enclave. I did see television programmes showing sensational stories which could seriously damage the effort being made by the Nigerian Government and delay the efforts of that Government in doing their best to deal with the situation.
Although I am convinced that those reporters were experienced as reporters or journalists, I am less convinced that their knowledge of West Africa was such as to lead them to a balanced judgment of what is likely to be found in the aftermath of a war. In view of the confusion which occurred after World War II and in the Middle East recently, or even in Northern Ireland last summer, we should


be very careful before we start criticising those in West Africa who are dealing with the terrible and tragic problem which has been forced under the spotlight for over two years.
What can Britain do? I have pointed out that I believe that we must not try to dictate. The idea of the United Kingdom Parliament trying to cram the imperial crown back on its head and tell the Nigerians, to whom we have given independence, what they should do is both ridiculous and unhelpful and could lead to the giving of succour to Nigeria's enemies. Do not let any of us go away tonight without realising that there are some problems of a political nature to be faced by the Federal Government. I want the message to go out from here tonight, if any message is to go out, that we are wholeheartedly in support of the Federal Government.
So, we must not dictate. The eventual solution must be a Nigerian solution. That is why those who talk about the reopening of Uli Airport are simply not facing the facts. It is for the Nigerian Government to decide whether to use Uli Airport. It is not for the British House of Commons. It may well he that Uli is such an emotive word in Nigeria that it would be wrong to use that airstrip.
Then, as was pointed out by the Joint Under-Secretary—to whom I, too, want to pay a tribute for his work in this regard—there are the supplies which we can send and which we are ready to send. The hon. Gentleman gave an encouraging picture. I know that the British Government and other agencies are ready to send what supplies are required. There is no shortage of food in Nigeria at present. It is a question of getting it to the right place.
I would also like to think that the British Government would offer technical assistance—of a managerial type or whatever—to the Lagos Government in their need now, perhaps, to get transport and other services running. When I met the High Commissioner and his colleagues in Lagos, he said that this might be an area which would require help when the war was over, because they had a major managerial problem.
Finally, I believe in General Gowon and in the Federal Nigerian Government. I believe that those under him are doing their best. I have met the General's colleagues. I have seen the work that they are trying to do, and I am encouraged. I believe that with a new nation, as with a young person, what is required is encouragement, advice and help, but not carping criticism or cajoling.
I believe that the Ibos, who now will have to take their place again in the society of a united Nigeria, will be welcomed back. Certainly, in those areas to which I went, with one or two possible exceptions the Ibo will come back and find his job waiting for him. It will be less easy, perhaps, than it was in the past, but this is something that can be overcome.
I believe that we must pledge our support at every level to General Gowan and his Government. We must not order. We must not command. We must encourage the Nigerian Government and give what assistance we can personally to make sure that once again the dream of a united Nigeria can come true.

6.14 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who initiated this debate, talked about there being a conflict between reputable witnesses over what is happening inside Nigeria today. Although I personally disagreed with much that the right hon. Gentleman said about his view of what is happening inside Nigeria, I think that this was a fair summary of the main theme of this debate and, indeed, the main theme of the debate that spreads far outside the House. It is very difficult to make a fair and balanced judgment of a situation as confused and complex as the ending to a sad civil war. Honest observers can have perfectly honest differences of view, both about what they saw and, even more so, about the real significance of what they saw.
There are two broad standards of judgment that it is fair and helpful to apply to the present situation in Nigeria. First, I think that it is fair to try to compare present anxieties—they are deep and sincere anxieties—about the situation with


the widely expressed fears of only a short time ago. Secondly, I think that it is fair to compare the problems and suffering at the end of this tragic civil war, as a number of hon. Members on both sides have done, with the suffering at the end of other conflicts.
Taking the first comparison, not so long ago there was a widespread fear that this civil war would end in genocide. It has not done so. No one has yet reported the killing of a single Ibo after the hostilities ended. It was feared not so long ago that Biafran resistance would go on endlessly as a guerilla campaign in the bush. That, indeed, was a fear only ate or two weeks ago. Blessedly for the Ibo people, that has not happened. It was feared that, after the bitterness of civil war, reconciliation between Ibo and non-Ibo was inconceivable. All the evidence is the other way.
Surely not even the strongest critic of the Federal Nigerian Government can fail to give them credit for the way that they are keeping their promise to promote reconciliation. The Administrator of the East Central State, for example, himself an Ibo, is reported to have declared the other day that all Ibo civil servants in the rebel enclave were being brought back to their posts in the public service,
Not long ago it was widely said that millions would be bound to die if food was not brought to them within a few days. I think that most hon. Members would accept that nothing remotely on that scale has been discovered, though I do not want for one moment to say that there is not a serious and grave problem to be dealt with.
Finally on this theme, it was widely alleged that the conclusion of this civil war, if it came to an end—some people in the House said, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, that it was unwinnable—it would be marked by ugly political trials. What has happened is that General Gowon has declared a general political amnesty.

Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South): rose—

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend will forgive my not giving way. There is only a short time left for the debate.
I do not think that we should underestimate the difficulties of reconciliation.

There will be many setbacks and many individual acts of discrimination and distrust on both sides. I think that there was a general feeling in the House tonight of admiration for the striking magnanimity that has been shown by General Gowon personally. Many hon. Members on both sides mentioned the comparison between the end of this civil war and the ending of the great European civil war which began in Spain, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and ended in Central Europe in 1945. I would merely quote the words of a wise editorial in the Observer on Sunday:
before anybody here lectures the Nigerians about their general treatment of the defeated Ibos, let him consider what other civil war in history, in Europe or elsewhere, has ended with as little revenge.
Whatever the arguments about the best methods of distributing relief—I will come to them in a moment—again, no one can question that only Nigerians can bring about Nigerian reconciliation. The Nigerians have been urged by a number of people, including some hon. Members in this debate, in effect to open their air space to an international free-for-all in relief. That was the demand of many decent, deeply concerned people, faced with the agonising pictures that came out of the human suffering in the enclave
If the Nigerians had done so, I suspect that the result would have been chaos rather than reconstruction. Supplies would have gone in that were not those that were needed most urgently, and the priorities of Nigerian needs would have been sacrificed to satisfying the desire outside Nigeria, which all of us share, to feel that we were doing something to help. I am sure that the decision to channel all relief through the Nigerian Government and the Nigerian Red Cross was the right one in relief terms.
Equally, it was the right one in terms of promoting reconciliation. As one of my hon. Friends said, if there had been an unco-ordinated invasion by an army of outside relief workers—some at least passionately pro-Biafran partisans—the Ibos in the enclave, with their carefully fostered fears of genocide, would have felt that they were being rescued from persecution by outside intervention. At the moment non-Ibos are bringing succour to their Ibo brothers. That is more


important than anything else that is happening today in Nigeria.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has shown that so far as Britain's direct responsibility is concerned in urgently providing the relief that Nigeria needs, we have done everything humanly possible. Money has been no problem. Before and since the war ended British authorities in Whitehall and Nigeria have worked all out in playing their part. I assure the House that the planning of this was actively under way in Whitehall, so far as it applies to our obligations and the matters which are our responsibility, before the civil war came to an end.
There have been complaints that there was not enough contingency planning on the spot in Nigeria. I might be tempted to make the point that it hardly lies in the mouths of those who said that the war would go on and on to complain that there were not adequate preparations for its sudden ending. All I say is that so far as British responsibility is concerned—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one must draw a sharp line between our responsibility for contributing what the Nigerian Government say they want and the Nigerian responsibility for looking after their own problems—we have done our best with the maximum urgency.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: rose—

Mr. Thomson: I am sorry, but I cannot give way now. We have only a few minutes left for the debate.
On the question of relief, I should like to answer one or two of the particular points which were raised. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked about the population figures inside the enclave. The truth is that there are no absolutely reliable figures. The census figures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred go back to 1963 and amounted to 12,400,000 people in the former Eastern Region. But the most recent figure that one can give is from a sample survey made by an American team in October 1969, and that gave an estimate of 3·2 million in the enclave as it was then. That is before it was split in two by the developments of the civil war.
Since then, many in the enclave who were refugees from elsewhere have properly been going back to their own villages and I think, therefore, that in the circumstances the figures given by Lord Hunt are the best expert estimate that can be made of the actual population figures in the enclave. If we put that against the figures which my hon. Friend gave about the supply of food, I think it is basically a reassuring picture, although in the short run there are, of course, a considerable number of very difficult problems to be overcome.
The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) asked in this connection if we would make sure that we were ready to offer to the Nigerian Government, if they wished them, skilled personnel of various kinds. I can assure him that this is certainly so. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development has opened a register on which people can volunteer for service in Nigeria, particularly in the medical field. I can say that in the medical field we can guarantee to meet any request from the Federal Government within 24 hours of its being made. At this point, I should like to pay a tribute to those who have so readily volunteered for this kind of service.
I have sought to put this British contribution against a background of the wider considerations which we ought to bear in mind, and I am sure that those who have had a chance to read in full the report of Lord Hunt and his colleagues will accept that it was a fair and balanced account of a confused situation by three observers of great experience and of unquestioned integrity. It shows how mean and ill-informed were the charges of whitewashing that were thrown around in some quarters of the Press. I speak as an old journalist. I do not think there was any basic discrepancy between what was reported by the Press and what was reported by Lord Hunt. They were doing different jobs. The Press gave an eye-witness account of a bad situation as they saw it. Lord Hunt had the task not only of reporting on what was bad as he saw it, but of using the immense experience of himself and his colleagues in putting it into a fair and proper perspective.
I was happy to see that Dr. Beer, the Secretary-General of the League of Red Cross Societies, said in Geneva at the end of the week that he completely backed up the report which Lord Hunt had made on the situation in Nigeria and that he himself would have said exactly the same. The Secretary-General himself had made a quite independent survey of the territory, taking a different route from that taken by Lord Hunt and his colleagues, and he said that he shared the feelings and observations of Lord Hunt in relation to the situation on the ground in the former secessionist area.
The situation on the ground is, of course, always changing. The international observer team is returning to the former enclave later this week, to produce an up-to-date report on the latest law and order position. In a situation where law and order can only be gradually restored it would be rash to prophesy how quickly the acts of misbehaviour by individuals, whether soldiers or civilians, can be brought completely under control.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mrs. Kerr: He might. You never know.

Mr. Thomson: How difficult it is to apportion blame in confused circumstances of this sort is illustrated by one interesting report that we received from a leading Roman Catholic source within the enclave. This eye-witness describes how, when the Federal troops entered Owerri, there was a good standard of behaviour at that stage, but he said there had been considerable looting by retreating Ibos. The latter had also looted several Catholic missions. I mention this not to pick on any particular example but to show that inevitably in this sort of confused situation bad things happen on both sides. What one wants is the maximum sense of urgency and progress to get these things put right.
Nothing aroused feelings more, or more naturally, than the pictures we have all seen as a result of the Press visits

last week, of the pathetically starving children. I would only draw attention to what I thought was an extremely interesting article by an experienced journalist, Mr. Nicholas Carroll, of the Sunday Times, who said:
… It took weeks and months for
these children
to reach this degree of physical distortion through starvation, and yet the Biafran ex-officers and ex-soldiers I was to meet in large numbers later were not at all emaciated. How could the Ibos have let it happen?
He admits that he did not find a very satisfactory answer to that question.
I believe the overall picture—sombre, uncertain but shot through with hope and light—is best summed up in Lord Hunt's own words:
We do not consider the overall situation to be at all satisfactory, but it is not as serious as earlier reports suggested. We found a few cases of great gravity and there are likely to be others which may come to light in the next few days. We were impressed with the overall plans of the Nigerian Red Cross.
Lord Hunt goes on to say that the immediate period ahead will be critical, and that success will depend on the ability to overcome transport difficulties and to ensure having adequate food and medical supplies where they are required. I repeat that Her Majesty's Government are supplying all the transport and medical supplies that they have been asked for, and, as my hon. Friend said, we are now supplying enough tents for 10,000 people to assist troop withdrawals and to ease the situation inside the enclave. Almost £1 million has already been spent on getting these immediate supplies out by the speediest methods.
We stand ready to do whatever is required to meet what the Nigerians tell us are their immediate relief needs. Afterwards, we look forward to cooperating with the Nigerians not in relief but in reconstruction, in the reconstruction of a unified Nigeria that will take its rightful place amongst the leading nations of Africa.

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) ask leave to withdraw the Motion?

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

6.31 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy.
I suppose that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be here in a moment.
We have chosen to move this Motion, couched in the briefest possible terms, because we think that the position is abundantly clear and that the Government are condemned, both inside and outside the House, in relation to their agricultural policy. We condemn, in particular, the complete failure of the Government to live up to their promises to agriculture. One could give plenty of quotations. The Prime Minister has on various occasions referred to the importance of agriculture. On one occasion he said:
We shall not solve our economic problems without a vigorous import substitution policy through agricultural expansion.
We are glad to have the Minister with us now. I am sure that he has good reason for being late. So far, I have referred only to the Prime Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, now Leader of the House, made various promises. One of the most forthright was this:
The main objective of Labour's new agriculture and food policy will be to maintain a prosperous industry and to ensure that the incomes of farmers and farm workers move rapidly towards their industrial equivalents".
That sounds a bit bitter in the mouths of most farmers today when one looks at the record.
The present Minister has talked on many occasions of selective expansion for agriculture. We have had during his period of office his acceptance in broad principle of the "little Neddy" proposals for the expansion of agriculture. It is true that he did not go to the full extent of the "little Neddy", which

talked of £220 million saving on the balance of payments in the first initial period, but he did fix £160 million, which was a very big figure, and he said that the resources would be found. The farmers have had promises all along from the Government but very little achievement. What is the record?
During the last 10 years for which the Conservatives were responsible, output rose by one-third, an average of 3½ per cent. a year. In the last four years up to the last Price Review—we have not had the figures for since then—there was a rise of 3 per cent., a lower rise in the whole four years than the average for each year in the 10 years before. It is a rise of an average of less than 1 per cent. per year. So much for the Prime Minister's talk of import substitution with expanded production; so much for the National Plan proposals; so much for the Minister's selective expansion.
That was the record up to last March. In the same period the net income—this was the first four years of the present Government—has risen by only £4½ million, from £472½ million to £477 million, according to the Minister's own White Paper. In the previous four years, under the Conservatives, it rose not by £4½ million but by £79 million. There is the comparison.
Meanwhile, the rate of rise in the cost of living has nearly doubled under the present Government. The cost of living rose by 20 per cent., while farm incomes rose by 1 per cent. That is the truth of it. Up to the latest available date, the cost of living has risen by over 24 per cent. Of course, we do not know what the official figure of farm incomes has been for this year. All we have now is the evidence of the farmers' own feelings, and they are fairly strong, as the right hon. Gentleman will agree. But to restore the purchasing power of the farmers to what it was before we left office, a further massive rise during the year 1964–65 would have been required amounting to a rise of over £110 million in net income during this last year. There is not the slightest evidence that this has taken place. If the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that this has happened, we shall be very interested, but we shall want a little proof.
That is the situation as it has deteriorated over the last four years. That is


not all. A further £110 million would have been added on the basis of output as it was when we left it in 1964–65. But if production had gone on rising as it did in the last 10 years of our office, there would have been an expansion of produce ion of 18 per cent. up to now instead of 3 per cent. under the present Government. If that had happened, such an increase would have been entitled to be reflected in profits and net income, and, based on the same level of unit return, this would have meant another £60 million or £70 million in farmers' taxation, a total of £170 million to £180 million. That is the measure of what the farmers have been cheated out of in the five years of Socialist government.
Apparently the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) finds it funny. I hope that he will say so to the N.F.U. meeting in London this week. This is only the history up to the outcome of the last price review. In recent months there has been an explosion of farmers' anger. Although we have to wait for the White Paper in order to get the official figures, we know that there is ample evidence that last year has shown a continued and in some cases heavy deterioration. In some areas the harvest was good and some cereal farmers perhaps did better than in the previous year. But that is not the position over the country as a whole. Cereal farmers in many counties had a very difficult time.
But what about the sheep producers, the beef producers and the milk farmers, particularly the milk farmers in the West Country? The Minister was told something about this, I understand, in Exeter a short time ago and perhaps he will tell us about that meeting when he replies.
Then, of course, the Prime Minister was told something when he went to Monk's. Wood and was engaged by local farmers in a little discussion. I never understood why he went to Monk's Wood in January. It is a charming place in summer. I believe that there are rare butterflies to be found there. But in January solitude is the only thing. I think that the Prime Minister would have wanted that but I do not think that he got much of it there. But it gave the farmers an opportunity to express their views to the Prime Minister, and I am glad they did so.
Farmers are showing their anger and frustration everywhere, and they are right to do so when, by so doing, they can bring home to Ministers the serious nature of their difficulties. It is in the argument and presentation of their case that, in my view, they will best further their case, and for this purpose we have chosen to initiate this debate. It is not usual for us to debate the subject just before the Price Review. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps the Minister is anxious not to debate the subject before the Price Review, but it is because the farmers are so anxious that he should know their views that we have chosen to do so today. If he says that we should not debate it now, he should tell us why when he comes to reply. This is surely the right place for the farmers' concern to be put forward, and that is why we do it.
Certain other clear elements have emerged which have to be put to the Government. I will tabulate these elements of what have emerged since the last Price Review. The first is that the determinations of that review have done little to alleviate an already difficult position. On that point, the right hon. Gentleman, when he went to Kettering last summer, invited farmers to come back and tell him if they were not satisfied. I believe that they have done so. What have they said? Perhaps he will tell us that.
Secondly, there has been a savage increase in farm costs. Why? It is due in part to increased taxation. The selective employment tax increases farmers' costs a lot indirectly, and it went up again during the past year. Thirdly, an overdraft ceiling has been insisted upon by the Government, and, with the erosion of the value of money, the retention of that ceiling has meant a real cut in the borrowing power of farmers. Fourthly, interest rates remain at very high levels, and, with the present very high overdrafts, the cost of credit is for many farmers becoming unmanageable.
Fifthly, it is not only a case of bank credit. The merchants, who have been traditional suppliers of credit, are forced by their own borrowing limits to demand payment in two months or less, thus restricting farmers' credit even more. Thus, farmers are being relentlessly squeezed, and bankruptcies are becoming


increasingly evident. Compare this with Ministers' promises, and one understands why the farmers are angry.
For the latest evidence we have not the official figures, but we have the indications I have referred to. There was an interesting article in The Times on 19th January by its agricultural correspondent, who wrote about conditions in the South-West. These are typical of small dairy farmers. They refer to the figures produced by Exeter University for 1968–69. The article says:
The new figures … come from a period which was supposed officially to be one of selective expansion, and one in which it was recognised that to get more cattle for beef some latitude would have to be given to milk producers. Net incomes generally show a substantial fall.
For the whole sample of 207 farms in Cornwall, Devon and Dorset, average net income fell by 7·5 per cent. a farm, compared with the previous year. The income to the area was down by rather more, 8·5 per cent., but this was offset by a rise in average farm size which has been going on for some years now.
The income fall was due to a bigger rise in costs than receipts; costs were up by 8 per cent. and gross receipts by 4·1 per cent.".
That is typical of the situation which has made the farmers so worried and indignant. Therefore, the present position of many farmers is that costs have got out of hand while receipts have remained, at best, static.
Why has all this happened? The Government say that the present system of farm support is right. If they are to justify that, they must open the purse strings of the Treasury much wider than they have done. The cost of the deficiency payments since they have been in power has not increased but has fallen. The White Paper on last year's Price Review showed that in the last year for which we were responsible the cost of deficiency payments was £146·1 million, and in the last available year £137 million, with an estimate for the present year of £143·1 million.
The right hon. Gentleman can perhaps confirm—but we all know already—that the outturn for the current year is going to be much less than £143 million because the market prices of some commodities have risen. There is the item of £24 million allowed for pigs which will not be reached. There will be substantial saving on this figure. The Gov-

ernment cannot claim to have spent more money to support the farmers. They have spent less. If they believe in the present policy and system, they must be in a position to find the cash to do it. If the system is right, it can only be the measures of the Government which are preventing farmers from getting a fair return. We have long said that we intend to change the system so that the cost will fall on the consumer rather than the taxpayer. We will ensure a fair return to get expansion going.
But if the Government adhere to their present system, it is for them to find money of the order that I mentioned earlier if farmers are to get a fair return and expansion is to get going rather than just be discussed, as has been the case so far. It is time that the Government came clean with the farmers and either admitted that agriculture was expendable, as their policies would seem to suggest, or honoured their promises so often made but so often broken.
So much for the record and so much for the Motion. I am speaking as briefly as I can because we have a truncated debate and I want to give as many hon. Members as possible an opportunity to take part.
I come now to the Amendment. It says that the House
'fully supports the agricultural policy of Her Majesty's Government in the interests of producers and consumers alike, both of whose interests would be prejudiced by the policy advocated by the Opposition'.
There are not many hon. Members opposite who represent rural constituencies, but I ask those who do whether they agree with the Amendment and whether they will take any pleasure in voting for it tonight. If they do, I hope that they will justify to their farming constituents why they voted for it. The record for producers is plain enough and I do not propose to comment on it further. However, I am interested in what the Amendment has to say about consumers.
Bluntly, I regard it as an impertinence for this Government to talk of consumers as though they had ever helped consumers. The Minister has suggested at times that the cost of Conservative policies would be very high, and the Prime Minister has spoken of a prodigious rise in food prices. The present Minister


of Agriculture said that he had never accepted our figures and then later realised that he had accepted them. When we last discussed this subject, I reminded him of what was said in a Written Answer of 26th June, 1968. There is no necessity for me to repeat that. He has accepted our figures and there is no wriggling out of that.
If the Minister wishes to challenge that contention, perhaps he will do so now during my speech when it will be easier for me to deal with the challenge. If he would like me to do so, I will give way now. As he has not risen, I gather that he does not accept my invitation and we can therefore take it that he accepts his own words of Wednesday, 26th June, 1968.
As we have stated in our pamphlet which is out today, our policy would increase the cost of food by 5 or 6 per cent. over a period of at least three years, and the total cost would be £330 million. Why should the Government cavil at this? What is their record? It is clear enough. In 1969 food prices rose by 6·4 per cent.—that was in one year, not three—which represents £357 million in one year as against our figure of £330 million three years. Since right hon. Gentlemen opposite have had the honour of being Her Majesty's Government, £1,300 million has been added to the cost of food—[Laughter.]—and no amount of laughing will carry that away; let them ask any housewife what the effect has been.
The cost of our policy would be to add 1¼ to 1¾ per cent. to the all-items index over three years, which is just over ½ per cent. a year. Last year the all-items index rose by 4·7 per cent., which meant that. £1,441 million was added to the cost of housekeeping in one year alone. Since October, 1964, the increase in the cost of living has cost the consumer £6,500 million extra. It is figures of this sort which should be bandied about when the Prime Minister talks of a prodigious increase resulting from our policies.
We are being honest with the consumers and with the public about our policies. It is a pity that hon. Members opposite have not been honest.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the Conservative

pamphlet which came out today, may I ask him whether I am right in assuming from Press reports that it will cost £50 million extra over the coming year for incentives to be allocated over a period to increase production? Would this meet the farmers' case?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman is not right. I hope that he will pay the 3s. and buy the document.
We postulated our argument on the assumption that the Government would honour their undertakings and give the farmers a fair return. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that there is no hope of the farmers getting a fair return from his party, his argument may be relevant. I am saying what we will do when we are responsible, and that will be after the coming Price Review. If the Government make good the farmers' return, an extra £50 million on top of that would mean something significant.
What I am saying is that we have to consider the position when we come to office. We assume that the Government will honour their pledges; if the hon. Gentleman is saying that they will not, we shall have to change the figures.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Godber: I have dealt with the interruption, I hope to the satisfaction of the House.

Mr. Anderson: Not to the satisfaction of the farmers.

Mr. Godber: Anybody who says that is condemning the present Government. That is the only assumption on which that argument can be sustained.

Mr. Anderson: rose—

Mr. Godber: I am not giving way.

Mr. Anderson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Constant standing will not make the right hon. Gentleman give way.

Mr. Godber: There is no justification for dealing with it in any other way. Our figure is the additional figure over what the Government give. If Ministers are saying that that is not enough, they are admitting that they will not give enough. If that situation emerges, we will deal


with it when we come to office at a Price Review, which is the proper way in which these things are handled, and the farmers' leaders know it perfectly well.
It is for the Government to justify what they are doing for both producers and consumers. We are ready and anxious to have the opportunity to put our policy into effect, when we will honour our pledges, in contrast with what is now happening. Producer and consumer alike have suffered enough at the hands of the Government. Both are now longing to get rid of every Minister from the Prime Minister down. If hon. Members opposite challenge that, let them take the challenge to the country. We are ready for the verdict of the electors, and we await their call to give both farmers and housewives a fair deal.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the Amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
Every hon. Member who represents an agricultural constituency wishes to speak tonight. I reinforce the appeal by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for brief speeches.

6.54 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'fully supports the agricultural policy of Her Majesty's Government in the interests of producers and consumers alike, both of whose interests would be prejudiced by the policy advocated by the Opposition'.
I listened with great care to the speech of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). While listening to him it occurred to me that he seemed to have forgotten much of what he said and did when he had some responsibility for agriculture. I am surprised that he should have forgotten that at this time of year we are about to enter with the farmers' representatives into the Annual Review. If he believes at all in proper consultation between the Government and the industry, he must know that the Government cannot say now what will result from that Review. Why, then, this debate? That is a question which the right hon. Gentleman asked me to answer and I will do so immediately—it is be-

cause the Opposition see political advantage in appearing as champions of the militant farmers. They do not confine their war games to east of Suez!
So the timing of the debate is suspect. The right hon. Gentleman has lectured us. That, too, is suspect. As we know, he has today published his glossy pamphlet called "The Farming Future". To make his own policy appear a spurious white, he has this evening to paint the blackest picture. I hope that in the course of the debate we shall have a more balanced picture of agriculture. It is true that the financial pressures, particularly the cost of credit, have been heavy on the industry recently. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my visit to Exeter. I must say that I enjoyed my visit.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: So did the sheep.

Mr. Hughes: The sheep are more at home with the hon. Gentleman than with me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Try the front door next time."] Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that when the last Minister of Agriculture in the Conservative Government, Mr. Soames, visited the South-West he received a very hostile reception. I think that it was at Wells. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Waldegrave, received a very hostile reception in Exeter. Many hon. Members from Devon and Somerset will readily confirm that farmers in the South-West are distinctly more impartial than the right hon. Gentleman.
I want to take up one or two points on which the Opposition challenged us. In their important Motion they seek to condemn not one measure or another but the whole policy of the Government.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad to understand that they appreciate this. It is therefore fair to set before the House the main features of that policy which they totally reject. First, we have guaranteed prices for most major commodities. I challenge the Opposition to say that farmers do not recognise and value the importance of a guarantee. It is on the foundation of these guarantees that the expansion of our agriculture over the last 20 years has been built.
There is all the difference in the world between a guarantee and a target. Hon.
Members who know about agriculture—and there are many in the House—will appreciate this immediately. The right hon. Member for Grantham knows this, as his own rejection of guaranteed prices did not wash with the industry. In his latest policy—and he has switched his policies frequently—he has therefore had to reintroduce them, not at the sort of levels which in his own view would provide a reasonable return to farmers but at a somewhat lower level.
During the last five years, we have raised the value of the guarantees, after allowing for costs and efficiency, by £105 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not enough."] Hon. Members opposite say that it is not enough, but in the preceding five years the Conservative Government raised the value of the guarantees by only £62 million.
I briefly take the commodities one by one. Over the last five years we have increased the value of the guarantee for beef by 45s. per live cwt.; over the preceding five years it was increased by 13s. per live cwt. We have increased the guaranteed price for sheep by 5¾d. per lb.; they decreased it by 1½d. per lb.
Consider other commodities; for example pigs, where we have increased the guaranteed price by 2s. 4d. per score, while hon. Gentlemen opposite decreased it by 8d. This is, perhaps, an unfair comparison, because we have done so much more. We have raised the top of the middle band—where the flexible guarantee bites—by more than 2½ million pigs. We have introduced, and within t he last month improved, a scheme of bacon stabilisation payments to the bacon curers which is widely recognised as a valuable addition to our commodity arrangements.
We have increased the guaranteed price of milk by 4·41d. per gallon while hon. Gentlemen opposite increased it by 3·15d. per gallon. We have increased the guaranteed price for wheat by 2s. 6d. per cwt. while they decreased it by 1s. 1d. per cwt. We have decreased the price of barley by 8d. per cwt. while they decreased it by 2s. 4d.
I have given these figures because the right hon. Member for Grantham quoted statistics. I am not saying that this is the whole story. However, it is a cata-

logue which exposes the protestations of the Opposition for the hollow sham which they are.
The second basic feature of our policy which the Motion condemns, is the improvement of the stability of markets. We proclaimed this in our first Annual Review White Paper, in 1965. We stated clearly:
… the Government consider that a primary objective of future agricultural policy must be to encourage this growth in productivity through the maintenance of stability in the industry".
To do this, we first had to unravel some of the arrangements which we inherited from the Tories. The House may recall that in 1961–62 there was a collapse of the meat market and that the Minister of that time had to come to the House for an enormous Supplementary Estimate. This event came as a rude shock to the Government of the day. As a result they did give some attention to stability on the markets and took some action. But let us look at the position then and the position now because that is the only way to make a fair comparison.
For wheat and barley they introduced completely new measures into the system. They put standard quantities on production. This device had the effect of cutting the effective guarantee to the farmer as production expanded. It was a brake—a brake on support from the Exchequer and on the money which the farmer received. This was at a period when there was already a hard squeeze on the guaranteed price.
At the same time that they took this action against the home producer, they entered into new agreements with our principal suppliers of cereals. I want to examine this matter carefully. These agreements were set out in the exchange of letters which was published as Cmnd. 2339 of April 1964. By these agreements they introduced minimum import prices. I do not complain about that. It was an advance. But at the same time they decided to give undertakings to our overseas suppliers, and that White Paper said:
The Government of the United Kingdom have decided that any necessary restraint of financial assistance should be applied through the effective reduction of guaranteed prices by means of the price mechanism described in the United Kingdom White Paper on the Annual Review for 1964–65".


A little later in this exchange of letters we find this undertaking:
If it is found that the total imports of cereals have shown or threaten to show an appreciable decline below the average volume of such imports during the three years preceding 1st July, 1964, and that this decline has taken place or threatens to take place because the changes outlined in paragraph 5 have failed to be effective for the purpose of maintaining that volume of imports, the Government of the United Kingdom shall take effective corrective action at the earliest practicable time to remedy the situation".
In short, that is an undertaking to take effective corrective action in certain circumstances to maintain the volume of imports. If the right hon. Member for Grantham is an expansionist now, he was on a slimming diet then.
But what have we done for the cereals market and the British producer? First, we have abolished the standard quantities. Secondly, we have retained and strengthened the minimum import price and levy arrangements. Thirdly, we have terminated the agreements set out in the exchange of letters which I have quoted, and those burdensome undertakings which hon. Gentlemen opposite entered into no longer exist. Fourthly, we have set up the Home Grown Cereals Authority, which is doing a very good job indeed.

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman has given an interesting historical record of what happened in 1963–64. In the light of his argument that we were restrictionist then, would he explain why farm production expanded so rapidly then, yet has not done so under Labour?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is distorting the whole argument—

Mr. Godber: Oh!

Mr. Hughes: —and he knows it perfectly well. I will deal with the whole question of expansion if the right hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience.
I said that the Home Grown Cereals Authority was doing a very good job indeed. With the cereals contracts scheme it has brought about an improvement in the interests of the producer and the trade generally. I am sorry that it upsets the right hon. Gentleman to

have the facts of life brought home to him.
Again, I point to the contrast. On their side, a brake on farmers' returns and undertakings to our overseas suppliers. On our side, higher guaranteed prices for wheat, abolition of standard quantities, improvement of the minimum import price arrangements, the ending of these undertakings to overseas suppliers and improvements in home marketing. There is the balance sheet for all to see.
It is not only on cereals that we have made marked progress in seeking greater stability in the market. For pigs, a product which for many years has been famous for the swings in production and price, we have created—I can claim this without being unreasonable—in recent years an entirely new policy. Instead of acting only on the guaranteed price, we have brought in the bacon market stabilisation arrangements under which substantial help has been given to the industry. Without this help, the bacon industry would have been in very great trouble by now.
We have also renegotiated the Bacon Market Sharing Understanding and removed important obstacles to the expansion of home production, which hon. Gentlemen opposite had incorporated in the Understanding they negotiated. In recent weeks I have made two other announcements of importance to the bacon industry and the pig producer, including the improvements in the stabilisation arrangements.
The pattern on pigs is, therefore, like that on cereals. We inherited a bad policy of inaction and restriction. We have given incentives to pig production and new hope to the bacon curing industry.
Cereals and pigmeat are two of the priority commodities for expansion in our programme. The other is beef. The House will, in fairness, agree that we have given greatly increased incentives for production. The beef market is firm and the prospect is good for the beef producer. None the less, we have drawn up a scheme designed to stabilise the beef market at times of temporary surplus. This scheme has not been drawn up to deal with a problem which is already upon us but in anticipation of possible difficulties. We have thought


it right to open discussions with our overseas suppliers while the market is stable. We want the means to maintain this stability in the future.
This therefore is what we have done, or have in prospect, to improve the stability of the markets for these important products; cereals, beef and pigs. We have also taken action on other products.
Now that we have made these improvements in policy, I readily agree that it would be foolish, imprudent and wrong—certainly for me as Minister of Agriculture—to be satisfied with output or income in the industry. These are most important issues for the Annual Review. It would be equally wrong to lose all sense of proportion, however, and to condemn the Government's policy that I have outlined, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have done in their ridiculous Motion.
The index of agricultural net output which was 100 for the average of the years 1964–67 rose to 106 for 1967–68. It then took a fall, for reasons which we know, in 1968–69. I hope and expect that in 1969–70 the index will have recovered.
For cereals we aim for the maximum expansion which is technically possible. Last year was somewhat better than we had the right to hope for in the spring, because of the good summer. But it was still disappointing. But the December census returns just published, which hon. Members will have seen, show that the winter wheat acreage is substantially up on last year. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must listen to the facts.
For beef we are on course to achieve the objectives which I have outlined and the upward movement in the beef herd continues strongly, as the figures in the December census show. We have done well with pigs in recent years but, again, I agree that we have lost a little momentum. On a sober assessment I have no reason to doubt our long-term objectives.
On farmers' incomes—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about sheep?"] We have discussed sheep at some length and we have had a good run on sheep in successive Question Times.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: rose—

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman asks me a question about sheep I shall answer it. My point is that I have been dealing with the three expansion commodities of cereals, beef and pigs. If the hon. Gentleman asks me about sheep I agree that there has been a decline in the national sheep flock and this will be carefully considered in the Review. All I can say is that for the last five years of Conservative government 1½d. per lb. was taken off sheep. I should have thought that it is that policy which is working through the industry at the moment.

Mr. Stodart: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that he has given this massive 5¾d. to sheep and that the flock has dropped by 4 per cent. every year means that the policy is not working properly?

Mr. Hughes: I would not propose to try to give any authoritative reason why the flock has fallen. What I would say is that 5¾d. a lb. over the last five years is considerably better than 1½d. a lb. down in the Opposition's last five years I agree entirely that the question of sheep must be looked at carefully and the Review is the right place to look at it.

Miss J. M. Quennell: The Minister said that he expected the index of agricultural production to recover. Could he give the House some indication as to the point to which he hopes it will recover?

Mr. Hughes: I must apologise to the House for my inability to give the figures at the present time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but it is the convention that these figures are given in the Review.
I return to the question of farmers' incomes, with which I was dealing when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) intervened. I say at once that it is an issue that I do not want to avoid. There was a decline in actual income in 1968–69. My colleagues and I are very deeply conscious of it, and a charge that I am in any way complacent about it would be totally false. I am deeply concerned about it and to make an analysis of it. The pressures on the industry have been brought home to me not only in the meetings like the one at Exeter but in quieter, perhaps more contemplative, meetings


with farmers elsewhere, especially in Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Welsh audiences are invariably courteous. We need a full consideration of this problem in the Annual Review, when we shall look with care at the forecast net income of the industry for 1969–70.
I turn now to the policy document of the party opposite, the booklet by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham. I praise the right hon. Gentleman for his honesty. He said that what he has written is "not a blueprint". He is right about that. I should not like to see an administrative machine built on that design. I also praise him for his caution. He says:
Should we then discover that the problems posed by any particular commodity are not soluble at that time through a levy system, then we shall maintain the deficiency payments in their present form for that commodity for as long as they may be required".
What he means is that if, on second thoughts, he finds his policy not working then he will not persist with it. That means that the other 26 pages of his document are wasted paper.
Let us very briefly examine the substance of the booklet. The right hon. Gentleman accepts and says on page 13 that a system of target prices buttressed by levies
will not give the same degree of certainty
as guaranteed prices. The logic is impeccable. If you do not achieve the target prices, the producer suffers. So what does the right hon. Gentleman do? To compensate for the added risk he will give the farmers even higher target prices. In other words, to compensate for failure to get lower target prices he is going to set even higher ones, which by definition will be even more difficult to get. This is the policy and the logic of the deranged.
It reminds me of the story of the man who tried to sell a phoney gold brick. "How", said the would-be purchaser, "can I be sure it is not a dud brick?" "Well, you can never be sure, but to cover the risk I will throw in another one", was the answer.
This is what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is his
intention that levies should achieve the intended level of target prices".

The House will note the skilful way in which in a single sentence he phrases his intention to achieve his intention. There is decisive action! But target prices not achieved are not much good for anyone, least of all the farmers. That is why the Opposition have repented and conceded that they must keep guaranteed prices as a fallback, as a net.

Mr. Mackintosh: How high?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend asks how high. I want to look at the implications of this and will do so in relation to beef. This is a commodity which both sides of the House accept as a clear priority for expansion.

Mr. Bert Hazell: Does not the policy put forward by the Opposition about fallback prices set a substantially lower level than the present guaranteed prices about which they are shouting so much?

Mr. Hughes: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I am about to deal with this point, taking beef as an illustration.
The situation is that under the Opposition's proposals, as I understand them, we start with the present guaranteed price. We then raise it a little to compensate for the loss of the guarantee at this level. We raise it again to give further stimulus for expansion. We add something more to compensate for higher feed costs resulting from higher cereal prices brought about by the new system. So the target price ends up considerably higher than the comparable guaranteed price. If production costs rise, it will have to go higher still to retain the same value.
The key question seems to me, having looked at the document—and I have not yet had time to ponder over it and delve into it in depth—is whether this can be achieved. I would say to the House and the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition that beef producers are not being offered anything which they do not have now, except greater uncertainty and risk. This is the weakness of the policy. The real trouble is that the Opposition are trying to have a Common Market-type policy for agriculture outside the Common Market. But a support system has to be devised to meet clearly seen objectives in a particular situation.
A levy on imports can be of no real significance as a means of securing the price level of a commodity in which we are largely self-sufficient. We all know that. The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that. It is home production which is then the dominating influence on the market. That is the position we already have in respect of such commodities as poultry, eggs, liquid milk, pork and main crop potatoes. The Opposition do not seem to have in mind a levy system for these commodities, or for horticulture or sugar, for which we have the equivalent of a levy system. But all those commodities taken together amount to two-thirds of the total farm output. The Opposition's radical new policy will apply to only about one-third of the total output.
In the interests of the House, it is fair to look at what the other commodities are. The remaining commodities are cereals, beef, mutton and lamb, bacon, and butter, cheese and the milk products. These are the commodities for which the Opposition want change. Beef is the commodity for which we have the highest rate of self-sufficiency. I have already said that I do not believe that their proposals will work for beef. That leaves only one-fifth of the output. Next, lamb. We import more lamb than we produce, so theoretically a levy would work. But there is only one significant overseas supplier of lamb, New Zealand.
The Opposition say that they will protect the "legitimate interests" of New Zealand. If that can be construed as meaning that they will leave New Zealand with the same opportunities on our markets as now, a levy system would serve no purpose. If they mean that they will deliberately and unilaterally limit these opportunities, let them say so. If they do not say so, their policy does not mean anything.
I address these remarks not only to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham but to his right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), who speaks on foreign affairs for the Opposition. I address them to him with a purpose, because his party claims—I ask him to note this carefully—
We see no reason why Commonwealth readiness to accept these limitations should not be extended to other agricultural commodities".

The limitations referred to are those for butter and cheese and under the international grains agreement. The impression which that is clearly intended to leave is that the renegotiation of international agreements, necessary before a levy system can be introduced, can be taken as a foregone conclusion. I invite the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not to deceive themselves. With their long experience of government, they must know better than that.
I challenge the Opposition to say whether, if they cannot negotiate the levies—this is a vital question in relation to their policy—they will then impose the levies on those countries with which we have agreements?

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman puts a serious question to me, but, as he knows very well, it is entirely hypothetical. It would be ridiculous to give an answer to a question posed in that way. We are confident that it will be possible to renegotiate them, and we shall have been returned with a mandate to do so.
While I am on my feet, may I put a question to the Minister in my turn? He has tried hard to ridicule our policy—he wants to get away from the facts of the present situation, so I do not blame him—on the basis that it will not work. Will he then explain why he and his colleagues are anxious and ready to go into the Common Market, which has a similar sort of policy at a much greater level of cost?

Mr. Hughes: The House knows very well that negotiation in relation to entry into the Common Market is a quite different state of affairs from adopting managed market policies outside the Common Market. If the right hon. Gentleman says that my question to him about levies is hypothetical, I can only say that he has forgotten everything he learned as a Minister. His answer to my question was totally unsatisfactory. It will be read carefully by the farming community. I am not ridiculing his policy. I am merely analysing it carefully and fairly. Both sides of the House will be deeply disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's response to my question.
The aim of the Government is quite different. We aim to achieve market stability, for this is a desirable end in itself. It benefits the producer and the


consumer. It limits excessive fluctuations in Exchequer costs. Our range of sensible market regulation, together with the well tried combination of guaranteed prices and production grants, provides a better basis for the continued advance of our agriculture than anything offered in the Opposition's policy document.
I repeat that the Annual Review is the accepted forum for discussion at this time. It may well be that the machinery of the Review itself needs to be rethought and improved. But for the immediate future we propose to examine the position of the industry with the farmers' leaders. In the light of this timing, I can only describe the Opposition's Motion as opportunitist and cynical, and I appeal to the House to throw it out.

Mr. Godber: On a point of order; Mr. Speaker. I did not hear the Minister move his Amendment, and he never referred to it at any stage in his speech. Are we to understand that the Amendment is before the House?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is before the House, and I have just put it from the Chair.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I welcome this censure debate on agriculture, though I am far from certain whether it has been initiated by the right people at the right time. It is true that the Opposition have been converted to the levy system, and to that extent their policy would enable the farming community to gain a higher return from the market than from subsidies. But, in so far as the Government are continuing a system under which farmers are at the annual mercy of a parsimonious Treasury which has time and again produced the result of massive under-recoupment of costs, the Government are merely perpetuating the bad habits practised by Conservative Governments.
Under-recoupment under the present Government has been severe. It reached £81 million in 1965, £16 million in 1968 and £6 million in 1969. But, taking the 12 Price Reviews under the Conservative Government, there was underrecoupment on every single occasion, and sometimes it was actually in excess of £20 million. There was under-

recoupment in different years of £22 million, £23½ million, £26½ million, £30 million and £30½ million. Therefore, what we are suffering from is not merely a few bad Price Reviews under this Government. The farming community is suffering from the cumulative effect of bad Price Reviews and under-recoupment over the past 20 years.
By implication, w e are asked the censure the Minister of Agriculture. When I heard his attack on the levy system, I felt that I had at last found someone on the Government Front Bench who would be as unhappy as the Leader of the House to join the Common Market. But, having seen the Opposition Front Bench converted to the levy system, I look forward to seeing the Government Front Bench converted, too.
I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. He does not basically like the levy system, but it is a price which he is prepared to pay if we can get into Europe. This is how one tries to have one's cake and eat it, too. But the right hon. Gentleman will not have a levy system at any cost unless he can get the corresponding industrial advantages of being in Europe.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I was attacking the Opposition's interpretation of how the levy system would work, as set out in their glossy booklet.

Mr. Thorpe: That may be the Minister's position, but the position of the Prime Minister on countless occasions has been to attack the levy system per se root and branch; so it may be that there is more enthusiasm for this on the part of the right hon. Gentleman than there is on the part of the Prime Minister.
I wonder whether, tactically, the Minister should be singled out for censure. I think there is some evidence that at least last year he tried to put up a fight with the Treasury and the rest of the Cabinet. The battle will be with the Treasury far more than with any other Ministry. I therefore regard this debate as a shot across the bows of the whole Government, warning them of the strength of feeling in the country, and hoping that we may strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's resolve when he goes in to do battle during the negotiations.
In what I hope will be a brief intervention I want to put to the House one


or two things on my shopping list which I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind during the Price Review negotiations. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever replies, cannot say that this or that can be done, because obviously we are in a pre-Budget situation.
The whole House is agreed about the importance of the industry. We are also all agreed about the economic climate in which it is operating. I think it is also agreed that the industry saves £300 million a year annually on our foreign exchange, and that with adequate credit facilities it could save an additional £100 million to £150 million without much difficulty.
With regard to the economic difficulties, I make no excuse for repeating the figures which have been bandied about, and which are the nub of the whole position of agriculture today. In 1968 farm prices were up 6 per cent. on the mid-'fifties. Prices of manufactured products were up 30 per cent. on the mid-'fifties, while retail prices were up 45 per cent. on that time. With productivity going up by 7 per cent. annually, which is twice the capability of the manufacturing section of this country, agricultural incomes in real terms are about 2 per cent. below what they were in the 'fifties.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the report of the University of Exeter, so I shall not repeat it, but this again is a devastating indication of the position of farming. In fact, the farming community is being hit in four different ways. First, their incomes have lagged behind those of others. Of that there is no possible doubt. Second, they have from that position had to absorb increased costs passed on from other industries. Third, inflation has reduced their purchasing power. Fourth, that has led to an increased need for credit which is both scarce and expensive. The farming community has been hit on four counts, and there are three vital needs for the industry: first, credit for investment; second, the need for expansion; third, an examination of the existing machinery.
I want to deal briefly with those three things, and I deal first with credit. The farming community would prefer to invest from profit, rather than from borrowing. It would far rather be able to have that

as the source for stocking and improvements than have to rely upon credit. In 1968 bank credit as a proportion of net output was as high as 45 per cent., compared with 20 per cent. in manufacturing industry. If the present trend continues, it will be well over 50 per cent. within the next three or four years.
The position was put by one rural bank manager, who I think is typical, who said that almost all his customers used to be well below their ceiling. The usual practice was for almost all of his customers to be below their ceiling except at the worst periods of the year. But the position now was that most farmers were above that ceiling for practically the whole of the year. The farming community cannot turn to the money market, first, because its units, individually, are far too small, and second, because the return is extremely unattractive to the investor. I wonder, therefore, whether there is any truth, or any prospect of hope, in the article in the Sunday Telegraph last week which said that there might be special credit and lower interest rates introduced during this Price Review.
The matter of credit was raised by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on 23rd July, 1969, when the Minister of State replied, and reference was made to the special export and shipbuilding finance and the waiving of the ceiling in regard to those two operations. My party would like to see a Land Bank which, initially, could deal with modernising and improvement, and which could make loans at low rates of interest repayable over a long period of years. We should look at the experience of other countries to get inspiration from them. There is an urgent necessity to enable farmers to get credit. When they have to pay 9½ per cent. to 10½ per cent. and more, on the assumption that they can get credit, this places a very heavy burden on the industry.
With regard to expansion, do the Government still stand behind their selective expansion programme?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: indicated assent.

Mr. Thorpe: Are we going to see an increased output in the year 1972–73 of £345 million over 1967–68? If the answer is "Yes", my advice is that they


had better start quickly. Anyone studying the interesting figures given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in a Written Answer on 18th December last to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) will see that we have a very long way to go to reach those targets. But if that is so, I think that there is a case for assistance for wheat, for beef, for cereals, and for sheep in this coming Price Review.
What do the Government feel is the import saving potential of the industry in the next few years? Is it £100 million, or is it £160 million, over the existing £300 million which it already saves in foreign exchange? I put this as the second reason for wanting expansion. If the first reason is that the Government are committed to their policy of selective expansion, that is enough. But a second reason is that if we go into the Common Market the levy will be very high. It will certainly be at the lowest £200 million, but it may be as high as £800 million. I accept that this will depend on the outcome of the agriculture discussions. I accept that Mr. Pisani has said that there must be renegotiation of Britain's position, but the higher our home production and the larger the share of the £950 million worth of present food imports, the smaller the contribution which this country would have to pay to the levy. So there is the second reason for wanting expansion.
The third reason is that the Government are under a statutory obligation to give a fair return and an adequate remuneration under Section 1, Part I, of the 1947 Act, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter which may be before the courts.
I hope that we shall see something really helpful in regard to lamb, beef, and cereals. If I may be allowed to digress for a moment, I hope that the Government, will do something about brucellosis which will be one of the great threats to agriculture, and will not say that we shall have a regional policy of slaughter starting in 1971. The damage will have been done by then. Finally, I hope that we can look at the present machinery, and the right hon. Gentleman alluded to this in his speech.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the right hon. Gentleman costed the proposals which he has put forward, even vaguely?

Mr. Thorpe: I am not certain which proposals the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If he has in mind 6d. a lb. on lamb, which will be a 15 per cent. increase and 30s. per cwt. on beef, which will also be a 15 per cent. increase, and other figures, the answer is that I have. If he is asking what we would save on the levy by increasing production, the answer, again, is that I have. If there are any particular figures which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I shall be delighted to try to give them to the House. I do not want to go into too great detail, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have costed them. As regards agriculture and the Common Market, some of us have been rather longer studying it, and came to a more enthusiastic view than some.
Next, the machinery. Psychologically, the trouble with the Price Review is that to the urban community it looks like a sort of annual hand-out to the industry. What it is is a system whereby the income of one industry is artificially depressed far more than that of any other industry. Therefore, this debate is of value if we can show to the urban community why a healthy agriculture is needed as much in their interests as that of the farmers. I would like farmers to retain a far greater percentage of their assessed efficiency in each Price Review. This would be a stimulus. If we have productivity agreements in industry, why cannot we have efficiency agreements in agriculture?
I would also like to see long-term guarantees so that people can plan their beef herds in regard to policies on the hill and upland areas. I remember, in my area of Blackmoor Gate, when there was a sudden cut-back of the hill-cow and hill-sheep subsidy by the then Minister of Agriculture—I think, Mr. Soames. Almost overnight, farmers were faced with a loss of between £400 and £500 a year income on very small farms.
If anyone says after this debate that the cry for agriculture has come merely from politicians and from the farming community, let me say that if we temporarily dismiss the viewpoint of both


those groups we can rely on the impressive speeches and evidence at the C.B.I. and N.F.U. conference. I think that the views of people like Fred Catherwood and Sir Kenneth Keith, who are extremely knowledgeable about priorities in the economy, were absolutely right in saying that we must raise the general level of profitability in agriculture and ensure that there is expansion.
Therefore, we need credit, we need a higher level of profitability and we need longer-term planning and a larger share of the market. That has been denied, not since a Labour Government took over, but for the past 20 years. The time has come when the agricultural industry should get a new deal so that it can play its full part in the economy of the country.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am glad to participate in the debate at this stage and follow the Leader of the Liberal Party, because I agree with a great deal of the analysis which he has given.
I should like to start with the right hon. Gentleman's end point, concerning the timing of this debate. I am very glad that we are having this debate before the Review, because one of the disastrous mistakes in agricultural policy has been the notion that we in the House of Commons should never talk about agriculture in the three months before the crucial decisions are taken. That is the absolute antithesis of parliamentary democracy and has done tremendous harm to the farming community and to the general appreciation of agricultural policies.
I can, of course, understand that in the years shortly after the Second World War, when we had the feeling that we could have been starved out, when there were the "Dig for victory" campaigns and the rest, agriculture had a special position because we felt indebted to the industry for the tremendous efforts it had made during the time of great food shortage.
In these circumstances, when the 1947 Act was written up agriculture was given the unique position that the producers' organisations had a statutory right to be consulted; but that has caused harm once conditions changed and were not as favourable to agriculture. When Govern-

ments—first Tory, then Labour—decided that they need not fully recoup the industry, harm began to be done because, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has said, the public were given no knowledge of the facts about agriculture. The facts were cooked up in secret. It was argued that we could not be told the facts before the final determination of prices. I see no reason why the basic statistics should not be issued the moment they are agreed. They could have been issued in time for this debate and we could then have discussed the subject on a basis of factual agreement. To have done this each year would have done a great deal to educate the public about the productivity of the industry and about what it has contributed in the past decade.
When we have the position that every year, out of the blue, there pops up in March a figure which is described as an "award" to the industry, the public are left with the idea that civil servants who make their living administering agriculture and the farmers' leaders have got together and cooked up something to the general detriment of the public. The only people who have lost by this whole proceeding have been the farmers.
I hope that we give up the machinery of the Price Review and now have a public discussion every year on the basis of a review of the facts, which should be agreed as they are now. We should then decide as a House of Commons what we recommend the Government to do, the N.F.U. should make its position clear, and the Government should be responsible for deciding what they wished to offer without being able to pretend that it is or is not agreed with the N.F.U. The final decision must be the Government's responsibility.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the reason we are having this debate is that hon. Members opposite want political victories and are launching what they call their agricultural policy?

Mr. Mackintosh: That may well be the case. There was no attempt on their part to have such debates before. I ask my hon. Friend to realise, however, that by the time we have examined the Conservative Party's agricultural programme in detail in this debate, they will not get any advantage from it. We will come on to that presently.
I think that the analysis of the situation that we have had from hon. Members who have spoken in the debate is, on the whole, generally accepted. I would not go so far as to suggest a period of 20 years of stringency, but I would say that since the 1957 Act agriculture has been squeezed on the ground that if its profitability was kept tight its production and efficiency would increase and on the general argument that there were food surpluses in the world and that many of the marginal units in agriculture were inefficient.
We therefore had the system of squeezing the returns to agriculture. Costs rose, and interest rates have risen, and yet the return to agriculture has not risen in any appreciable measure. That is the core of the problem. What bothers me about this is that we have to make a fundamental decision: is the country's agricultural policy to change, and are we intending to divert into agriculture a greater share of national resources than it has so far received?
The distressing factor about this debate is the tendency, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has drawn attention, that it is becoming a bit of party banter back and forth without a clear-cut answer from hon. Members opposite whether they would clearly divert into agriculture more national resources than it has at present. To that question we need an answer and not the sort of rather boring, partisan treatment that we always get from the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber).

Mr. Peter Mills: That is not fair.

Mr. Mackintosh: On the question of resources for agriculture, I should like to argue the case for putting more into the industry. The first and one of the strongest arguments, which has been given by the Leader of the Liberal Party, is that if we are to go into Europe, it must be with a strong and vigorous, and not weak, agriculture. Secondly, every extra element of production that we get from agriculture reduces the financial burden of going into the Common Market. These things are important.
Again, nobody has proved, as formerly was thought to be the case, that resources

which are put into agriculture are less productive than resources which are put into industry. The Select Committee investigated this question, and there is no evidence that those resources are less efficiently used.
Similarly, the old argument put forward by the Board of Trade that we had to open our market to agricultural imports in order to expand our industrial exports is a completely unproved proposition for which there is no evidence. It is amazing that this hangover of the speeches of Cobden and Bright, made in the House of Commons in the 1840s, should still be dogging our agricultural policy today. It is a grotesque situation.
Do hon. Members for one moment believe the argument that Germany, which today is one of the most efficient industrial nations, would have been any less efficient if she had not protected her agriculture and kept up her standard of living on her farms and her agricultural production? So there is no argument against a diversion of resources into agriculture.
There are some technical difficulties about how one supports the efficient units while encouraging the less efficient to move out of the industry. This is a technical problem of great difficulty, because if one buoys up the whole industry, one buoys up the marginal and the inefficient producer at the fringes as well. We know that the vast majority of our agricultural production comes from 10 per cent. of the units.
The next question is: if we are to put extra resources into agriculture, how is it to be done? There are two rival recipes. One has been put forward in successive speeches by Counservative shadow spokesmen and one in the green publication released today by the Conservative Party. I am still not clear, after glancing through it, whether they are making a case for putting increased resources into agriculture.
Figures are given by the right hon. Member for Grantham on page 7, where he calculates the increase in food prices if present deficiency payments were abandoned, as £150 million—because this is roughly what deficiency payments are running at now plus an extra £100 million because of the height of the levies. Then there would be £25 million


to £30 million in distribution, transport and other costs. Then he says—this is what I tried to pin him to in my intervention—that the Conservatives would add to the bill £50 million for incentives to get expansion. I tried to ask whether he now thought that the position of farming could be restored by the addition of £50 million. If so, the farmers will repudiate any such offer. The right hon. Gentleman leapt to his feet in great agitation and said, "Oh no, not £50 million, but £50 million above the current level of deficiency payments". If that is the case, he is deceiving the public about the cost in terms of higher food prices, because he has added in only £150 million when putting a figure on the level of deficiency payments.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he adds £50 million on top of higher deficiency payments, food price costs will go up further than his pamphlet admits. This is a plain deception on the public. He must make up his mind. I suspect that what he really believes is that, if there happened to be a change of Government, there would still be deficiency payments of about £150 million, and that the Conservative Party would add £50 million and that that would be the lot. If that is all the Conservatives can offer, then all their hot air about being the farmers' friends will fall fiat in front of the N.F.U.

Mr. Stodart: Of course, if there is a change of Government, there will be a continuation of deficiency payments. If the hon. Gentleman has read the paper, he knows that they will go on for at least three or four years before they are phased out. My right hon. Friend, I thought, made it abundantly clear that he could not, thinking of a Price Review probably four years from now, lay down precisely what the figure can be, but he made it quite clear that this £50 million is taking into account a price review.

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand my argument, which surprises me. Let me repeat it for him. If, at the time when a Government switch from deficiency payments to recouping the full cost from the market, the total of deficiency payments is considerably above £150 million—

which is what he is arguing now—this should be added into the cost of the increased food prices, which it is not in this pamphlet. What his right hon. Friend has done in calculating food prices is to keep deficiency payments at £150 million. Then when he is telling the farmers what they will get, he quotes £150 million, plus other deficiency payments, plus the £50 million. The Conservative spokesmen cannot have it both ways; they are cheating the public on this point, and it will not be accepted, because the farming community will add the £50 million and the £150 million and know what is in store for them if hon. Gentlemen opposite have their way.
Another of the weaknesses of this extremely dangerous policy of the Conservative Party is the degree of certainty and uncertainty. Farmers always say—I agree with them—that one of the main problems in farming is confidence, and that if that is broken, investment drops off and the enthusiasm of farmers wanes. One of the great dangers of total recoupment from the market is that in those products where we are virtually self-sufficient, even if only for a limited period of the year, if farmers are recouping totally from the market, and if there is the slightest glut, the bottom drops out of the market. Hon. Gentlemen know that this happened, even with a deficiency payments system, in the fat cattle market two years ago, and they know the disastrous effect of this on confidence in farming. What will happen if this is repeated in a series of commodities at regular intervals, I hate to think.
This prospect so alarmed the farmers that the right hon. Gentleman, the "Shadow" Minister of Agriculture, went along to a meeting and argued, "You must then undertake support buying". When asked what the cost would be, he could not give a figure and said that, in any case, some of that money would have to come from producer organisations. He got such a bad reception that he went back and argued that there would have to be a fall-back guaranteed price somewhere below the target price. What a joke. No one is taken in by this. The crucial question, of course, is: how far below? If it has any validity, it completely removes the tax-saving element in getting rid of the guaranteed price


system. It is a total deception to imagine that this is a solution.
I notice that the Conservatives call this a "belt and braces" policy. They will reduce farming to the level of a man whose braces are flapping on his shoulders and whose belt is around his knees. This is the situation when one has a low guaranteed price and a high levy price with a market price fluctuating wildly in between.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Sir David Renton.

Mr. Mackintosh: I was only giving way, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman might say to which hon. Member he was giving way.

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).

Mr. Michael Jopling: The hon. Gentleman was talking about the possibility of gluts. Would he not accept that under a system of levies with stringent import control there are much less likely to be gluts on the market than under the present system, when uncoordinated imports have so often ruined our market?

Mr. Mackintosh: I am grateful. I am discussing gluts on the home market which will knock the bottom out—nothing to do with imports—

Mr. Jopling: Nonsense.

Mr. Mackintosh: Imports have an effect, but I am saying, first, that the Conservative policy could produce this without a single ton of food imported.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman's point about dumping in this country. Again, the Conservatives' policy is completely incomprehensible, because in one section of their pamphlet they say that if there is dumping and a ship arrives with cheap food, up will go the levy to protect the farmer. Yet in another section they say that the levy will be maintained on import prices month by month to encourage British importers to try to get their products cheaper from abroad.
Again, they cannot have it both ways. If the levy fluctuates and is capable of dealing with dumping, it will not encourage importers in any way to try to get the cheapest prices abroad, because the cheaper they buy the imports, the higher the levy will go, which means that the British consumer will be paying the majority of the levy and this in turn will have a very detrimental effect on our balance of payments.
I have been drawn into a longer discussion of the Conservative policy than I had intended, because of its general weakness and because it is important to draw attention to the fact that there is no evidence that this policy will do anything for farming except increase uncertainty, and there is no evidence that it will bring a greater volume of resources into the industry.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Is the hon. Gentleman not being a little wilful about dumping? The assessment of the levies is related to foodstuffs which are genuinely on offer on the world market. Surely he realises—it has been said before—that there is a minimum import price linked in to avoid the question of dumping.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am afraid that this does not get around the problem, because it is exceptionally hard to decide what is a genuine market price for the items of which we are the main purchaser. If there is a fluctuating levy which can deal with the odd isolated act of market breaking and of dumping, it will completely discourage British importers from getting the cheapest food from abroad so that the whole advantage of the levy will go to the foreign supplier. When I said this at farming conferences which the hon. Gentleman has attended, there was no denial and no counter argument, and none has yet been produced by any of the agricultural experts who have tackled this problem.
I turn to the alternative method of putting extra resources into the industry. The best method, it seems to me, is still the basic method which we have in this country, of putting it on the end price. That is by far the best method of increasing confidence, of putting more resources into the industry and of spreading them down through the industry, allowing the farmers to decide where they prefer to use their extra revenue. There is a good


case for that policy, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
If we strengthen our agriculture, we are in a much better position to negotiate our entry into the Common Market. I will get round the difficulty which the Leader of the Liberal Party put to the Government Front Bench but in a slightly different way. I am keen to enter the Common Market, for it will be of great benefit to this country, but it has a protective system for agriculture. The misfortune is that it does not have a more sensible system of farm maintenance than that at present being adopted.
I should prefer it if we could go into negotiations by explaining to our future colleagues in the Common Market that the guaranteed price system has a much better effect on the farming industry than has the system which they are working. But until we get into the Common Market I see no reason for abandoning a system which, on the whole, has done well and which probably is the most effective in bolstering and encouraging the industry—one of our most efficient industries—to do an even better job.

8.1 p.m.

Sir David Renton: From the speeches which we have heard so far it seems that everyone is glad that we are having this debate—except the Minister. Personally, I am thankful that we are having it because I know how extremely anxious my farming constituents are. When they read the speech which the Minister made today they will be filled with both disappointment and dismay. If there are any who are not already completely disillusioned by the Government's farming policy, they will be disillusioned when they have read his speech.
There seems to be an extraordinary lack of communication between the Minister and the Prime Minister. Hon. Members know that the Prime Minister recently visited my constituency and came to Monk's Wood. I live within two miles of Monk's Wood, but I could not go to the party to meet the Prime Minister. I was told that when eventually he spoke to the farmers he said that he understood their feelings and he expressed sympathy with them.
In the Minister's speech today we had not one word of understanding or sympathy. We had what I hope he will not

mind my calling a hedgehog of a speech, which resented the valid criticisms made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and which picked upon a number of comparatively minor matters in which the Government consider either that they have achieved something or that something has been done which he thinks will bring good results. On the broad issues which face farming, the Minister put forward a completely negative case.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he could say nothing because of the Price Review. If the end product of farming policy is to depend upon the Price Review and the benefits or lack of benefits which the farmers get from it, it is an extraordinary situation if we are not to be able to have a debate before the Price Review in which the Minister considers himself free to discuss at least the issues involved and perhaps, as was so valuably said by his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), to give us some of the basic statistics which by this date, nearly into February, will not be disputed. The Minister could at least do that. If we are not to have a debate before the Price Review so that we may influence the Government in that way and if we are not to have a debate after the Price Review which will be of the slightest effect, because the Review will already have taken place, where does Parliament come into the matter?
This is a vital debate in which I shall speak briefly and make only two main points. I can make the first point best by referring to the speech of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), with much of which I agree. He said that farmers have suffered from under-recoupment for the past 20 years—and that statement is broadly true. But there has been a tremendous difference between the effect of under-recoupment under Conservative Governments and the effect of under-recoupment under the present Government. In the first place, in spite of under-recoupment under Conservative Governments, production increased very considerably, whereas in the last five years in some instances it has fallen and in other instances it has not increased nearly enough, and the expansion which is so necessary to the country's economy has not taken place.
Another difference is that in addition to under-recoupment, there have as a result


of the present Government's policy, been several seriously adverse factors which have not only affected the incomes of farmers and their families but have prevented the expansion of the industry. First, there have been exceptionally high interest rates; secondly, there is the higher taxation, which has meant that even when farmers made a profit there was less money to be ploughed back for expansion; and thirdly, there has been the higher cost of everything that a farmer has to buy. In addition, there is capital gains tax—although it has not yet had the effect which it ultimately will have in depriving the industry of capital. It will have a progressively serious effect in all the years which lie ahead until another Government change this part of the law.
Because of other aspects of Government policy, therefore, under-recoupment has been made very much worse. If he were to do his job, in the Cabinet the Minister of Agriculture would not only be maintaining better communications with the Prime Minister but would be influencing his colleagues, especially in the Treasury, about these other aspects of policy which are so damaging to farmers.
The second main point which I wish to make has been touched on in an interesting way by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. It would be worth diverting resources to agriculture. The comparison between the situation of manufacturing industry and the situation of agriculture is a very unhappy comparison. Both manufacturing industry and agriculture, of course, suffer from frustration, but in the past 15 years manufacturing industry has increased the price of its goods ex-factory by about 30 per cent., it has had the benefit of protective tariffs and the benefit of payments by the Industrial Reorganisation Commission and other bodies. As a result, the exports of manufactured goods have increased—a fact in which we rejoice.
I invite the House to draw a comparison between what has happened to manufacturing industry and the treatment of agriculture. We find that the prices for wheat and barley, which are so basic, were lower in 1968–69 than in 1958–59. We find that, all round, farming has fared

very much worse than industry at large. When we translate this into the incomes of the workers concerned, leaving alone the farmers and their families, we find the most astonishing results. Today industrial workers are earning, on average, £1,250 a year. These are earnings including overtime, bonuses, and so on. I know that a great many small farmers in my area wish that they had been earning as much as that on average during recent bad years.
As the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian rightly says, there is a strong case for diverting resources to agriculture. I hope that we will hear much more in future about helping agriculture to expand and to save imports, rather than further artificial stimulation of exports or more about protection through industrial import tariffs. I hope that the Government will take very seriously the feelings of the farmers. They are alarmed as well as frustrated. They have good reason to be and I hope that this debate will influence the Price Review and that the views of the farmers, as expressed not only in the debate, but by the N.F.U. and in the various demonstrations will bring about a completely different attitude on the part of the Minister from that which he appeared to display tonight.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Following on the last point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), we could have a very interesting debate on the need to divert resources to the agricultural sector and the ways and means of doing that. The Motion as framed by the Opposition is a political stunt—no more and no less—and it deserves to be treated as such. If we try to analyse the motives of the Opposition in moving this blanket condemnation of Government policies we can only trace it back to the fact that a year or two ago they lost the sympathy of the farming population because of their playing about with the levy system. They are now desperately trying to mend their fences prior to a General Election.
It is surely no coincidence that our debate is timed to coincide not only with the N.F.U. meeting in London but with the publication of the right hon. Gentleman's "Green Paper". Hence the


attempt to have the "belt and braces" attitude, the so-called fall-back guarantee, and this brave new system, torn to shreds earlier by the Minister. He did this admirably by asking on what basis it could be assumed that our existing treaty obligations with our suppliers can be renegotiated. One wonders what discussions the Opposition have already had, for example, with the Irish Government and what would be the reaction to their assumption that these import arrangements can so easily be renegotiated.
It is quite unprecedented to have this sort of Motion, based on blanket condemnation, immediately prior to a Price Review. I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if we cannot have a debate before the Price Review because of its imminence and if it is useless to have one afterwards, when can we discuss agriculture? Surely the difference now is that, as recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), the figures on which we would want to base our discussions are not available and the terms of this Motion show that it is no more than a stunt.

Sir G. Nabarro: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by a "stunt"? Does he realise that I have only one industry in my constituency, farming, and that the whole of the farmers in South Worcestershire are seething with discontent with this Government? How dare he call it a stunt when I voice their legitimate dismay and their grievances, in South Worcestershire, not Monmouth?

Mr. Anderson: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in stunts, would not need any lessons from me on the meaning of the word. What I mean by "stunt" is what I have said in part already, that is the timing of this Motion, the opportunist way it is being put forward, trying, in spite of past difficulties with the farming community, to pose as the farmers' friend. This I would call a stunt and I am sure that a large section of the farming community will recognise it as such, in spite of this seething discontent.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: No.

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not give way.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: No. One lets a dog have one bite, but it becomes dangerous afterwards.
I also think it is quite unprecedented for the Opposition to take up the cudgels on behalf of one interested group in our community. One might contrast their position with, for example, the teachers and the nurses. The leaders of this group have expressed their dissatisfaction but are prepared to adopt a position of wait and see. Let me quote the President of the Farmers' Union, who recently said:
Farmers are so fed up with what they justifiably regard as gross exploitation of their position that unless the 1970 Review decisions are right there will be an explosion of anger …".
He is prepared, while voicing dissatisfaction on behalf of his members, to wait and see what results from the Price Review.
Hon. Members opposite are trying to be more partial than the president of the relevant interest group. Why are they now posing as the farmers' friend? Their own reviews were far from generous. There have been increased costs. Even after adjusting these figures for the cost change and the efficiency factor, the result is still favourable to the Government.
The question at this stage is: what about farm incomes? What about the complaints now being made by the farming community? One might say that there are bound to be annual fluctuations by the very nature of farming—the weather, the harvest and disease, such as the disastrous foot-and-mouth disease. The three-year average of incomes shows an upward trend. There was this fall of £40 million in farming income in 1968–69 which has sparked off the present militant reaction. This reaction has also to be placed in the context of what the farmers see happening in other sectors of the community, what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, called, rather unwisely, the avalanche of wage claims. This fall in 1968–69 has led to increased


difficulties and action is surely needed now, when all the facts are known.
I will not rehearse at great length the problems facing the farming community, as they have already been mentioned by the Leader of the Liberal Party, and by others. My own farmers told me last weekend of their problems. There is the problem of tightness of credit, which affects the whole community, and in this case, at least, farmers are priority borrowers at the banks. A banker who deals particularly with farmers recently told me that he is very worried about how the present farmers' lending level is to be cleared on their present profitability—

Sir G. Nabarro: That is what we have been saying.

Mr. Anderson: I have not denied, and I do not now deny, that there is a problem, but I still maintain that there is a stunt on the part of hon. Members opposite. With interest rates at 10 per cent. and a return on capital of 4 per cent. farmers are in a very difficult period. One also hears that merchants do not grant the extended credit periods that would have been expected in the past. Massey Ferguson, too, as a result of the present farming situation, has written down its own contracts for sales in the United Kingdom. I hope that at the appropriate time, which is the Price Review, the Minister will review these needs and increase farm incomes. For the sake of my farming community, he had better do so.
The Motion reads:
That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy.
Such a blanket condemnation paints a bleak picture which is very far from reality, as is evidenced by the Government's perhaps undramatic miscellaneous farming legislation, which has produced substantial improvements on a very wide front. The whole picture needs to be seen before one can properly assess the sort of blanket rejection and condemnation that we have had from hon. Members opposite.
The picture of previous restrictions on production and action has been altered as a result of Government policies. I can only give headings, here, because of

the hour, but one cites the improvement in marketing and market stability; the Home-Grown Cereals Authority; the Meat and Livestock Commission; the voluntary restraint on cheese and butter imports. One can compare the relative stability in our own milk market with the very obvious failure of milk marketing policy on the Continent and in developed countries elsewhere. In February, 1969, we had the agreement to improve bacon marketing. Figures only recently published show the upsurge in domestic production.
We have preparation for modernising the farm structure in the 'seventies, aid for voluntary amalgamations and the encouragement of farm co-operation schemes. We see in the Agriculture Bill a reduction in paper work. One recalls important Measures for consumer protection and for the protection of human health. We have seen import saving developments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, that the period before entry into the E.E.C. is the time to increase our own domestic production so that the cost of entry, when it comes, is reduced.
I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Minister will not listen to the self-appointed spokesman for agriculture, whose own policy has seen many twists and turns over past years, but will listen, rather, to the genuine complaints, and they are genuine, of our farming community, and to the facts of the situation. Sympathy and action are needed, and we look forward to what my right hon. Friend does at the annual Price Review.

8.25 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson), unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), has shown himself to be quite out of touch with what we are discussing. When he spoke of the reduction in paper work I was reminded that only last week I helped one of our men to fill in the form needed to get a licence to drive a lorry. The form contained about 10 or 12 pages—as a direct result of recent legislation. The paper work mounts all the time. However, we have only a short time for this debate, and we shall not get very far if we pursue the hon. Gentleman's line of argument.
It is well known to all of us that in the last 10 years, while total personal incomes have gone up by 46 per cent., the farmer's income has gone up by only 7 per cent. Arguments between the two Front Benches about future policy do not really meet the present situation of the farmers before the holding of the Price Review. That Review has to be carried out under the present Act, by the present Ministers, on the present facts, and that is what we want to stick to.
If the Government are really committed to seeking entry to the Common-Market, does not the Secretary of State for Scotland agree that it means that this country will in future have to pay large sums into the Common Market agricultural funds? If that is so, it is surely essential beforehand to see that there is no denial of capital for the modernisation and improved efficiency of our farming industry. If we do not take this opportunity to keep our farming industry as efficient as possible we shall face great difficulty in future.
I see every sign in the country that farmers are not able to spend all the money they would like to spend on the modernisation of their farms and on maintaining fencing and draining. In many respects, the squeeze on prices has sometimes forced people to go in for what I would call bad husbandry. For instance, they have had to go in for continual cereal growing, with the result that the Government have had to bring in subsidies to try to redress what financial policy has forced people to do, though they do not think their action is in the interest of the land.
This is the right time of year to say that it is essential that whatever is gained by extra productivity should be retained by the farmers to be ploughed back into the industry. If the Government really mean to enter the Common Market, they should provide farmers with that opportunity to plough back. That is why this debate, against the background of the Price Review, is crucial. I do not wish to enter into arguments on commodities. We want an admission from the Government that they know the very real financial difficulties that exist. They must have the figures, for instance, of the ceiling of bank loans and must know that farmers have been forced to repay bank borrowings by going to other

means of financing. This is all known to the Government. They should acknowledge and realise that unless more money is retained by farmers to plough back into the industry, particularly with the possibility of entering the Common Market hanging over us, more money will have to be channelled out of this country to the Continent and farmers will not be allowed to keep the full measure of their productivity.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: Like some other hon. Members who have spoken, I am somewhat surprised that we should be having a debate on agriculture at this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Give me a chance. It is because my right hon. Friend's hands are somewhat tied in view of the negotiations which are about to start. One would imagine from some of the arguments put forward in the debate that we never debated agriculture in this House.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: What good does it do?

Mr. Hazell: That is another matter.
We give more attention to discussing problems concerning agriculture than problems concerning any other industry. It is not correct to say that it is advisable to have this debate at this particular time to convince this Government of the necessity of maintaining a healthy and prosperous agricultural industry. The Government are fully conscious of the position of the industry. My right hon. Friend has had agruments put to him of which he is best aware in the recent days and weeks from leaders of the National Farmers' Union.
I can only suppose that the Opposition, in seeking to discuss agriculture today, have two things in mind. First, there is the conference of the National Farmers' Union which is taking place in this city this week. Hon. Members opposite want to cash in on the discussions which will inevitably take place at that conference. They want to appear as the champions of the farmer. Their support over past years cannot lead one to believe that they are to be the saviours of agriculture in the years which lie ahead. When we look back to the past when Conservatives were in power we see that their contribution towards a successful


and prosperous industry left much to be desired.
The second reason why they want to cash in during this particular week and to show their renewed interest in agriculture and present my right hon. Friend with some difficulties in determining what line he should take over the Annual Review, is probably due to the fact that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has been very unsuccessful in convincing the farming fraternity that the policy he advocates—presumably that of the Opposition—would give additional rewards to those employed in the industry. We all know that only a month or two ago he decided to rehash his so-called policy and to add as a belated thought that some consideration would have to be given to the policy followed since the 1947 Act although it was weakened by the Opposition, when they were in power, by their 1957 Act. The fact that they have decided that there should be fall-back guarantees is an indication that they realise that they were unable to convince the farming fraternity that their target policy with levies on imports was likely to win the support they hoped for.
The impact of import prices on the cost of living will not be lost sight of by the general public. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) put the case extremely well. The Conservative Party has not been altogether honest in its document about the impact on the cost of living. Hon. Members opposite have tended to slide over this, for obvious reasons. The first is that they know the general public would take exception to substantial rises in the cost of food, rises which need not necessarily occur. Secondly, their policy argues that taxpayers would be relieved if their system were adopted. Workers in low-paid industries or those such as pensioners on small fixed incomes are not particularly interested in any slight concession which might accrue by way of taxation. They are much more concerned with the cost of their food. This attitude cannot be brushed aside, although it may be wrong for the general public to take it.
The Opposition say that they would probably compensate those on low fixed incomes by additional social assistance.

A large number of people, particularly old people, because of pride or lack of knowledge, do not seek the additional financial aid which is available. Such people are not likely to apply, except under pressure, for any enhanced assistance which might be available as a compensating feature of food costs rising substantially. This idea smells rather like the old means test which was so unpopular for many years under Tory Governments.
The very fact that food prices might rise substantially would lend support to those elements within the trade union movement who are consistently pressing for substantial wage increases, and this could have severe repercussions on the economy. If food prices rose substantially, no one could discourage substantial wage claims even if it were desirable to do so.
It is all very well for hon. Members opposite glibly to talk about the consumer paying. There is a stone wall of opposition that takes some overcoming. I accept that, relating producers' prices to consumer prices, producers are unfairly treated. I wish the Government would institute a much closer study of the wide margin which exists between the price to the producer and the cost to the consumer. Most Governments have failed to study this question in the required depth. The narrowing of this gap to the advantage of the producer, would benefit the industry substantially.
Five weeks ago I attended a seminar in Germany at which about 120 farmers from West Germany were present, and also the West German Minister of Agriculture. I had to explain our position and approach to the problems of agriculture, and German farmer after German farmer rose and said that he wished they had a system of agriculture such as we enjoy in this country. They are not at all enamoured of target prices. Target prices are not guarantees; they are merely something on paper. The producer is concerned not so much with target prices on paper as with the actual returns that he receives for his products. German farmers would like their Government to change the policy, and work towards a system such as we enjoy here, but they recognise that they are up to the hilt in the Common Market agricultural policy


and that, therefore, such a change is unlikely.
When I hear so much about the serious plight of our agriculture, lack of confidence and so on, I cannot but reflect on the fact that farm rents have risen substantially over the last year or two and that the price per acre for farms in the market has soared—

Mr. Jopling: It is falling.

Mr. Hazell: —over the last five years, I accept that there has been a slight fall recently, but it has been very slight indeed compared with the substantial rise that has taken place since the present Government have been in power. The high rents and prices of land reflect the prosperity within this industry and the measure of confidence in it.
Do not let us forget that it is farmer competing against farmer for land on the market, whether for rent or for sale. I talked to a farmer in my constituency during the Summer Recess and he told me a terrible tale of woe. Like every other good politician, I listened to what he had to say without making many comments. Every day of the week I hear extravagant arguments of one sort and another. I was fascinated to find that within the last three weeks this farmer had bought another farm for which he had bid well over £300 per acre. Those two aspects of the case do not seem to me to tie up.
I am not blaming the farmers for agitating. I am a good trade union officer, I hope, and, in supporting any claim that I have put forward, it is my job to argue in order to convince those in judgment that my case should receive their favourable consideration. I have never entirely succeeded, and I have my doubts whether the farmers will succeed altogether in their demand. But I do not blame them for demonstrating or agitating. It is their job, within their union. I am not so sure that it is our job in this House to do their job for them, and I am not sure that if we tried to do their work for them we would succeed.
I recognise that agriculture is a long-term industry and that farmers want some reassurance. This is not unnatural. But the expansion policy announced by the Government will continue. I believe that it will. I believe that my right hon. Friend s 100 per cent. sincere in his

desire that agriculture should continue to expand. I believe that this may well be reflected in the Price Review, but he cannot tell us that tonight. It would be wrong if he attempted to do so. It would take the whole meaning out of the negotiations. I do not think that the farmers would be glad as an official body if he were to announce in advance what his intentions are, commodity by commodity or on the total global figure. After all, the farmers are entering the Review for the purpose of negotiation and, therefore, my right hon. Friend could not give the House or anyone else a statement of what is in his mind as a means of meeting the demands of the farmers.
Agriculture is an efficient industry. No one can detract from that. It is as efficient as, perhaps more efficient than, agriculture in any other country. That efficiency has been built up because there have been guarantees, because there has been a measure of security and because the farmer is conscious of his responsibility to the nation. But, more than that, he is conscious of the fact that, if he maintains his efficiency, the country will not neglect to try to reward him accordingly.
I do not accept the argument of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. If I did, it would be because it was they who laid down certain conditions. They imposed standard quantities which my right hon. Friend has either removed or substantially removed. They agreed that it would be possible for any Government to reduce the guarantees by 2½ per cent. in any one year in any Price Review. They are the ones who, in the past, imposed restrictions. The present Government have agreed an expansionist policy. I believe that policy will go ahead and that we shall see that that is so when the Price Review results are announced.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Nothing could more clearly reveal the basic cause of the failure of the Government's agricultural policy than the speeches we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members opposite in this debate. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), in his remarks about the price of land, and his rather sneering suggestion that a large part of the farmers' complaint is a sham, put forward for bargaining purposes only, echoed the remark of the hon. Member


for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson), who called this debate a stunt and went on, almost incredibly it seemed to me, to reproach us for taking up the cudgels on behalf of one section of the community.
Agriculture is still the largest single industry in this country. In my constituency, not only is it the largest industry but the whole prosperity of the constituency depends upon the prosperity of agriculture. It is, therefore, almost insulting to be criticised for taking up the cudgels. What else is one here for except to take up the cudgels on behalf of one's constituents? Having in the past represented a partly mining constituency, I would be the last to criticise an hon. Member for championing his mining constituents and I am astonished that hon. Members opposite should criticise us for championing our farmers and farm workers.
I am sorry that the Minister is not now in his place. I make no complaint of his absence. I merely refer to it as part apology because I shall say some critical things about him. No doubt, however, the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to deal with them.
The Minister, in his speech, only once came anywhere near approaching the heart of the matter. This was when he said that he was worried about the loss of farm income during 1968–69. The rest of his speech would not have led anyone to suppose that there had been any such loss or that that loss of income shows every indication of continuing at an accelerated rate in the current year.
In my part of Lincolnshire, at least, there is deep anger and considerable fear amongst the farming community. The farmers have a real sense of having been abandoned by this Government. If they had been able to listen to the speeches we have heard today from the benches opposite, that sense of abandonment would have become all the more acute. Having once fought a constituency following the resignation of Mr. Stanley Evans, I have a feeling that his philosophy that farmers were "feather bedded" is still widely believed on the benches opposite, but however true that may have been in the immediate aftermath of the war, when there was great shortage of food in this country and

throughout the world, it is fundamentally untrue now.
One of the ironies of the present situation is that hon. Members opposite, who are so ready to identify injustices in other countries, seem so extremely slow to appreciate the change there has been in farming in the last generation and the very serious financial situation which now faces farmers. As has been said, farmers face steeply rising costs and high interest rates, on the one hand, and yet have steadily falling incomes and a steadily falling return on capital, on the other.
This is a nationwide situation. The Minister rightly said that the degree of seriousness varied greatly from one part of the country to another. In my part of Lincolnshire, where on top of all these other problems we have had two extremely bad harvests because of the shocking weather, the situation may be even more serious than it is in the rest of the country.
Through the kindness of some of my farming constituents, I have had the opportunity to study the books of a number of representative farmers in various parts of my constituency in recent months. As someone who has some knowledge of financial matters, it seems to me, having studied these books, that many farmers, including some extremely efficient farmers, in my constituency may well face ruin within the next year or two unless the profitability of farming can be substantially improved.
I am not one given to using extravagant language, but I use the word "ruin" in all seriousness, because I believe that to be the situation which faces them. Nothing in the Minister's speech seemed to reflect any awareness by him of the seriousness of the situation. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North who, after all, is a very distinguished trade unionist in agriculture, made light of the situation, because he must recognise that the prosperity of farm-workers is inextricably bound up with the prosperity of farmers and farming as a whole.

Mr. Hazell: Of course I appreciate that the wages and earnings of farm workers are bound up with the industry as a whole. However, I remind the hon.


Gentleman that wages are usually negotiated just before a Price Review and that in the Price Review the full impact of whatever award is conceded is one of the cost factors taken into account. In addition, the cost factor is based on the total number of workers at the time of the wage award, whereas we know that in the year which follows the number substantially declines—or at least it has done so for the last 12 years—so that the farmers have gained from any wage award by the end of the year.

Mr. Tapsell: That does not in any way influence the argument which I was developing. I am bearing very much in mind the fact that the Prime Minister promised that the gap between agricultural and industrial wages would be narrowed. Far from this having happened, as a result of the declining prosperity of agriculture in recent years, that gap is widening.
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, on 2nd February the minimum agricultural wage is to be raised by 15s. a week, but even then the average agricultural wage, as opposed to the minimum, will be only £16 3s. 9d. a week, which is £7 14s. 8d. a week less than the average industrial wage, and that for a three-hour longer working week and even taking industrial wages at the latest figures available last summer. If one takes account of the enormous wage increases which industrial workers have been obtaining in recent weeks, and the latest figures, of the December increases, which were the largest for 20 years, the gap is a good deal more than £7 15s. a week and is probably now well over £8 a week.
Is it surprising that in that situation there is an absolute flight of labour from the land? In the great agricultural county of Lindsey, in which my constituency is situated, the number of farm workers has halved from 18,000 to 9,000 in the last 20 years. The rate of decrease is accelerating all the time and, at the latest count, in the new entrant age group of 15–19 there were less than 800 farm workers left in the county of Lindsey.

Mr. Hazell: I accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the wide gap between agricultural and industrial earnings and the decline of manpower. I have expressed concern about this on

many occasions. I was making the point that if the farmers had offered farm workers in recent negotiations 30s. instead of 15s. the total figure would have been taken into account in assessing the additional cost at the subsequent Price Review.

Mr. Tapsell: From where is the money to come? Farmers are the first—certainly those to whom I have talked—to say that agricultural workers are disgracefully underpaid. They would be delighted to be in a position to pay them a wage which was competitive with that paid to industrial workers. But until farming has a very much higher income and a much higher return on capital, agricultural wages are bound to remain depressed. I would have thought that the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the N.F.U. were in precisely the same boat and that in this respect the N.U.A.A.W. should be bringing pressure to bear on the Minister to give the farmers a generous Review, or otherwise farm workers will never get a fair crack of the whip. If the hon. Gentleman cannot grasp that, I shall have to stand against him myself at the next elections in his union.

Mr. Hazell: I would welcome that.

Mr. Tapsell: The serious effect of these inadequate incomes and inadequate profits is not only short-term, because it leads to the land being overworked and to a shift away from animal husbandry to excessive cereal production and a generally unbalanced state of agriculture. It also leads to the neglect of capital investment, work on ditches and fencing, the provision of new equipment and so on. This produces a situation which cannot be remedied overnight and this means that we are, in effect, mortgaging the future by allowing this state of affairs to continue.
I am glad to see that the Minister has now returned to the Front Bench because, having made some critical remarks about him in his absence at the outset of my speech, I wish to remind him of what I said. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem in his speech—except in the passage to which I referred—to understand the seriousness of the situation and the fact that his personal honour is now becoming involved.
We think of him as a man of integrity, and he is widely regarded as such in the farming community. But he must remember that at the time of the "little Neddy" report, in the autumn of 1968, he went a long way in public towards endorsing that report. Following a speech which he made at that time the farmers in my constituency expected a much more generous Price Review than they subsequently got.
At that time it was difficult to reconcile the Price Review with what the right hon. Gentleman had previously said when the "little Neddy" report appeared. The only way to explain it—I am prepared to accept what the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said about the Minister having done his best but having been overruled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—was the fact that we were in the midst of a major economic crisis, that we were borrowing money from the I.M.F. and that the I.M.F. was making quarterly examinations of our books. No doubt the Treasury told the Minister during that crisis that a good Price Review was out of the question. And, as the right hon. Gentleman was relatively new to his portfolio, it was felt that he had done his best, and we were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I warn the Minister that that will not happen a second time. He has now spent a considerable time in his present office. Now we are continually being told by the Chancellor that the economic situation has greatly improved. The time has come when the farming community not only expects the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and take on the Chancellor in a vigorous way, but to win. If the Minister is unable to produce from the Treasury a really generous Price Review this time—one which will go a long way towards putting right the serious faults which I have outlined—his only honourable course will be to resign.

Mr. James Davidson: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is he aware that the tenor of his argument is that the Minister must squeeze some sort of concession out of the Treasury? Is he aware, however, that it has been adequately demonstrated that it would be

greatly to the advantage of the Treasury to allow agriculture to play a much bigger part in import saving?

Mr. Tapsell: I agree, and that brings me to the final point that there are two urgent needs now—first, for an immediate and substantial increase in the income of the industry, something which can be achieved only in the coming Price Review; and, secondly, in the long-term there must be a fundamental change in the present system.
All Ministers of all Governments will be faced under the present system with a situation in which, however hard they try on behalf of the farming community to improve matters, they will be unable to get sufficient money out of the Treasury. This is the root cause of the problem, and that is why the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), as expressed in his speech and in the latest Conservative document, provide the obvious long-term solutions to the problems of the industry. For this reason, the terms of our critical Motion are entirely justified.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Tony Gardner: I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument about why the debate is taking place today, except to say that I suspect that there is a connection between the debate and other events now taking place in London. One also suspects that in view of the furore caused in the farming community when the Leader of the Opposition made his statement not long ago about cutting taxes the debate has been called for partly because the need to explain current Conservative policy in the countryside.
One thing which I will not take from the hon. Gentleman is his questioning the motives and the views of some of us on this side of the House in regard to farming and the countryside generally. We are capable of expressing our own points of view on featherbedding or anything else.
I say this seriously to the hon. Gentleman because I grew up in a family who saw my father come home after sweating his heart out in tomato houses


for 34s. a week. Knowing what a marvellous wage that was in 1938–39, the hon. Gentleman need have no doubt about my understanding of and commitment to farm-workers and the farming community generally.
Also, it ill becomes hon. Gentlemen opposite to state their case by appealing to the needs of the farm worker. Some of us have been involved in trade unionism for a long time and have seen the struggle of farm workers under all governments to obtain a decent wage. If the farming industry had treated its workers a little better in the past it would have a little better case today.
My main remarks are addressed to the case put by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). The right hon. Gentleman and I are near neighbours in the East Midlands, and we both know and understand the problems of the farming community in that area. I accept right away that there certainly are some problem although I would not go to the extreme to which some hon. Members have gone in this debate when they preach disaster.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned my home county of Dorset. I can remember what the farming community was like in Dorset when I was a boy. I can remember how relieved we were—although it seems awful to say it—when the war came and the farming community could begin to recover from the bad situation in which people were living and working.
When I look around Dorset and the East Midlands now I see a great deal of land under cultivation. That is surely a measurement, and a good measurement, of whether there is prosperity in agriculture—the fact that farmers find it worth while to plough the land. It confirms the figures in the December Farm Census of the increase in autumn sown wheat, and other cereals. There is no evidence of impending disaster, although I would go so far as to say that there are very severe problems in agriculture in the constituencies of the right hon. Gentleman and myself and in other parts of the country.
Some of these problems have arisen accidentally because of the vagaries of the weather. I was speaking recently to a farmer who lives not far away

from me. He is a fairly substantial and fairly prosperous dairy farmer and I am sure he is an efficient farmer. He told me that, amongst other things, his overdraft had increased by £7,000 in the last year.

Sir G. Nabarro: He is lucky.

Mr. Gardner: This was almost wholly because of the phenomenally high prices for hay and straw last winter.
Another local farmer in the difficult times last spring lost the whole of his potato crop because his fields were flooded and the potatoes appeared above ground and just went black. Certainly, there have been some special problems and we all agree, I think, that my right hon. Friend has a responsibility to the farming community to help it overcome the problems which it has faced this year and last.
Also—again, I am with the right hon. Gentleman—there is a more general problem. It is not entirely a British problem. It is a problem being faced throughout the developed world. As the standard of living generally rises, farm incomes fall in relation to the gross national product. As I say, this is not a problem for this country alone. The Americans slaughtered hogs, and the French before the war had a policy of almost wicked waste whereby the flour extraction rate determined the price of cereals.
The problem has been growing. The figures relating farm income to g.n.p. and incomes generally over the past 10 years show how it has developed. I had a letter only the other day from a small farmer in a village only a few miles from where I live. He is working 10 hours a day, and six hours on Sundays, for an income which he estimates to be about £10 a week. He says, and he makes a reasonable point—
I write as a young married man with a family. I have no ambitions to be a tycoon. All I want is to be sure that in future I can supply the day-to-day needs of my children, but it does not look at the moment, if things do not improve, as if I shall be able to do that.
There are problems, especially for the small farmer, and we hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to do something about them.
I come now to the point at which I part company with the right hon. Gentleman. He has a reputation for being an


honest man. I am sure that his concern for the farming community and for farm workers is just as genuine as that of my right hon. Friend or anyone on this side. So it is not his honesty I question, but I doubt if whether the right hon. Gentleman is telling farmers the whole truth. I suspect that he is an innocent abroad. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members may say that, but not so long ago the Leader of the Opposition said in the House that one of the ways by which we could save the monstrous weight of income tax was to cut out deficiency payments. That is on record. There was a terrible hullabaloo in the farming community.

Mr. John Farr: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.

Mr. Jopling: We represent farmers, too.

Mr. Gardner: The Tory policy group was asked to prepare an answer, and we had that answer not so long ago. That is why I suspect that the farming community will not trust Tory policy, because it has been based on a hasty political turn-round.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: What the hon. Gentleman calls the new Tory policy is at least five years old. In fact, we fought the last General Election on it. The modification is merely a modification to avoid the great losses and troubles of support buying in which the Government might get mixed up with the physical handling of produce.

Mr. Gardner: All I know is that the Leader of the Opposition told us that that was one way in which we could reduce taxation. We have been debating this evening precisely how much reduction there will be, and there is considerable dispute about it. I suspect, therefore, that a good many people in agriculture, much as they respect the right hon. Member for Grantham, will simply not believe that Tory policy is honest.
The farming community can look back over the years. I do not have with me the figures relating to the number of agreed Price Reviews under both Governments, but I am sure that there are plenty of people in agriculture who can remember all too well disastrous Price Reviews and disastrous Ministers of Agriculture

under a Tory Administration. So disastrous were some of them that they were obliged quietly to move on to other things because of great pressure from the farming community to get rid of them. That was the way Tory policy worked.
May we come to the meat of the argument?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gardner: One reason why people will not trust Tory policy is that in the document published today there is a commitment that if the policy increases food prices by 6 per cent. old people and the poorest sections of the community will be looked after. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman believes that to be the case, but I think that it would be as well to ask whether his right hon. Friends who are responsible for financial matters agree with him. In 1964 we had a spending boom, and a great deal of money was given away, but old-age pensioners had to wait. There is no evidence of great generosity by the Conservative Party to the less fortunate in the Community.
We have the Leader of the Opposition sailing in and out of Far Eastern ports promising that British troops will remain there and that the carrier fleet will be maintained. By implication, Tory posters promise a cut in motor taxation. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has promised professional people in my constituency that they will have more money to spend on luxuries abroad. The hon. Member for Worcester, South (Sir G. Nabarro) went to Long Eaton and promised categorically that S.E.T. would be abolished. The only question that I ask is how, faced with that sort of situation, and having to make good all those promises, as well as those made by the right hon. Member for Grantham, will a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer be able to provide the money?

Sir G. Nabarro: It is true that at Long Eaton in Nottingham I promised that S.E.T. would be abolished, with special preference for farmers, but all my party spokesmen make identical promises, because it is official Tory policy. I rub the hon. Gentleman's dirty nose in it.

Mr. Gardner: I was not aware that farmers paid S.E.T. directly, but I shall leave that. The hon. Gentleman merely


confirms what I am saying. If it is official Tory policy to do all these things, it will be interesting to hear the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman will have with his right hon. Friends, if they—and I shudder to think of it—become responsible for the Government of this country.
Apart from what I have said about people at the bottom of the scale, pensioners, and others, being neglected, let us do a little arithmetic. If the amount which is now paid by way of support for fanning were removed, this would give a figure of £250 million to £270 million, about 6d. in the £ off the standard rate of income tax. I do not know exactly what difference a 6 per cent. rise in food prices and a 6d. in the £ off the standard income tax would make to a wage earner, with a family, on £15 a week. My estimate is that he will be lucky if he gets the price of 10 cigarettes out of it. Let us therefore be careful when we talk about helping people who are amongst the lower paid in the community.
I come now to deal with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. One of my particular interests is horticulture, another industry which has cause for complaint. Standing in a market place, bellowing through a microphone his contribution is—

Sir G. Nabarro: Speaking.

Mr. Gardner: —speaking through a microphone.

Mr. Lawson: Bawling.

An Hon. Member: Or loud hailer.

Sir G. Nabarro: I do not need a loud hailer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is getting too bucolic.

Mr. Gardner: We hear complaints about wicked French and Italian apple growers whose great sin is that they produce, pack, and dispatch apples in such a way that they are attractive to the British housewife. The most disastrous thing that we can do in an industry faced with over-production—and quite frightening over-production—in Europe is to erect further tariff barriers. The evidence is that this would encourage British producers to produce even more. I wonder what the effect of

this policy will be if eventually we have to join Europe and face the full rigours of European competition. This would be a disaster for the industry.
I reject absolutely the policy that we have had outlined from the Opposition benches. I accept at once the challenge made from the Opposition Front Bench that the Government have a responsibility within the present system to provide greater incentives in agriculture. The cost of the deficiency payments system is not all that great. It has fallen by 27 per cent. in money terms and, I think, by 50 per cent. in terms of the gross national product over the last 10 years. It is not a costly method of supporting agriculture.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to secure more resources for agriculture. I hope, too, that in the not-too-distant future he will be able to improve the system of agricultural credit. I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), who pointed to the need for marketing. Farmers simply cannot understand the difference between the price at the farm gate and the final price to the consumer. The Government have done a great deal to improve marketing, but a great deal more needs to be done.
In short, we should maintain the present system of agricultural support and, within that system, give the agricultural community greater incentives. One of the difficulties—this is a serious point which has been made by hon. Members on both sides—is that those of us who have any interest in agriculture believe that by its high productivity its contributions to balance-of-payment savings can be considerable, but we cannot prove it.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a crash programme to get that kind of arithmetic done so that we can compare inputs into agriculture with inputs into manufacturing industry. I hope that he will do this and give the farming community this year a degree of incentive that will help to restore some lost confidence. Agriculture has served the country well, particularly in terms of productivity. It has a claim to a higher share of the national income, and I hope that it will get it within the policies of the present Government.

9.23 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I shall be very brief and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will forgive me, if I am provocative, if I do not give way.
I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) said at the beginning of his speech about the past. My maternal grandfather made speeches in the country in the mid-1920s trying to get the farmers to agree to a minimum wage of 30s., but he was unable to get it. We do not want to see those days again. I also support what has been said on this side, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell), about the need to bring agricultural wages up to a level which is more comparable with those of other industries. I only wish that other industries would let the agricultural worker catch up before they ask for more themselves.
The Minister must have been taking some military advice today, and not very good military advice at that. That advice may have suggested to him that perhaps the best form of defence is attack. He therefore directed most of his remarks to attacking our policy. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have the advantage over most back benchers on this side of having a copy, which we have not. I hope to get one in the post tomorrow.
The object of the debate is to examine the Minister's policy. We say that that policy is failing. It is very rare in an agriculture debate, or in agriculture itself, that one can be certain about anything, but one thing of which I am absolutely certain is that unless something is done quickly, because of what has happened at the last three harvests in particular, many small farmers, but some medium-size farmers also, will go under altogether.
Perhaps the most interesting thing which the Minister said today was that he thought that it might be necessary to regear the machinery for price reviews. If, by that, he meant that the outcome of a Price Review might be loaded to have different effects in different parts of the country, this would get us near what I have in mind is necessary now. There is no question that certain counties have been so hard

hit that unless something is done before the next harvest there will not be a harvest in many places. This is one of the most serious aspects of the present review.
Of course, I recognise that the Minister cannot possibly tell us tonight what he will do, but I want to impress on him as earnestly as I can, after consulting farmers all over the Isle of Ely, that there is now a crying need for a cash injection to get all too many farmers through to the next harvest. How this is done is perhaps the Minister's greatest problem in approaching the Price Review. Bank managers say that they cannot lend these men any more, even if they dared to borrow it. The tragedy is that all too few of them dare not borrow any more. They are finding it very difficult to meet their interest rates, and even their tax bill, if they have one.
This is why I hope that the Minister, in going into this review, will recognise that not only a considerable advance in prices is required, but also an immediate cash injection in selected places where the need can be established. I put it no stronger than that, but I hope that it is a fair proposition; I should not be representing the interests of my constituents if I did not say this.
Finally, I want to talk about the expansion programme. As we have been able to calculate it, when the Minister announced this in November 1968, it involved an annual increase of about 4 per cent. a year in order to hit his target. It is absolutely certain that that figure will not be reached this year in the out-turn of the 1969 harvest. It certainly was not hit before then. I therefore ask the Minister what he now calculates to be the percentage annual increase necessary to hit that target.
What is happening here by itself justifies, if nothing else did—and many other things do—our saying that the policy is failing and is likely to go on failing unless something else is done. This has never been more clearly shown than by what is happening to the expansion programme. It just is not working. The Minister must do something in this review to make sure that it does, if he wants to hit his target. Unless he now aims at an expansion of 6 per cent.—plus for the remaining period, the industry has not a hope of hitting it.
We should be told what the Minister intends by way of encouragement, without mentioning any figures. He should be able to try to tell us what extra needs to be done in the remaining period of the expansion programme to ensure that those targets are hit. Unless they are, we shall continue to wallow in balance of payments problems from time to time.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As an advocate of five-minute speeches at this stage in a debate, I will try to confine myself to five minutes as so many hon. Members wish to speak. I will, therefore, raise only one main subject—that of antibiotics as raised in the Swann Committee's Report. In view of what was said by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), I should point out that I represent a rural constituency in relation both to distinguished sheep farmers like Brian Cadzow, and to firms such as "Chunky Chicks" which bring many hundreds of thousands of birds for the table each year.
I ask the Government what they propose to do about the control of antibiotics and I express the opinion that there ought to be some continuing and sustained mechanism of control, run preferably under the auspices of the A.R.C. What is to be the attitude on feed-antibiotics, particularly in view of the controversies which have surrounded the feeding of animals?
I urge on my right hon. Friend the advice of the Swann Committee Report and suggest that in his own Department and in the Scottish Department he ought to increase the epidemiology in the Government service. With that I combine the question what is the reaction to the Swann Committee's recommendations that universities should be encouraged to set up departments of epidemiology inside the academic set up. What will be done to carry out that recommendation?
May I ask specifically about penicillin? Does it satisfy the criteria for the control of antibiotics, in particular if we permit its supply and use without prescription? Should that system be revoked? This is a fairly urgent matter which concerns quite a number of farmers.
Another specific question—what is being done to conduct a survey to determine the presence or absence of anti-

biotic residues in animal products? As my right hon. Friend knows, that is an urgent problem of interest both inside the farming community and outside it.
Finally, I turn to a point which is causing some eyebrow raising on both sides of the House—the whole atmosphere in which the recommendations of the Swann Committee's Report are being debated. It would not be proper to mention any particular firms which have been active in the matter. Some hon. Members on each side of the House have been their guests. But a serious problem is arising. Indeed, it has been raised elsewhere by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke).
The problem is, how does Parliament set about deciding the legislation which ought to be introduced in a set of circumstances in which the distinguished members of the Swann Committee gave one set of advice and a number of academics, such as Dr. Jukes and Dr. White Stevens, produced to a number of us a different set of advice? I do not know whether this is a case for the Select Committee on Science and Technology to look into or a case for the revival of the Select Committee on Agriculture.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] These are deep waters. But it is a serious problem of how Parliament ought to look at the agricultural aspects of the Swann Committee's Report. As my right hon. Friend knows, this is extremely urgent. Those of us whose chief interests are perhaps scientific and technological and not agricultural are equally concerned, if not more concerned, about how the Department goes about this problem and the style in which my right hon. Friend will tackle it.
I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) and Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) that some of us who are laymen in these matters marvel at the discrepancy between the prices which farmers receive and the prices in the shops. I would particularly make reference to the price of butcher's meat in Scotland. If I thought that a higher proportion of the meat charged in butchers' shops for Scottish meat were going to the producers I should be much happier.
Finally, I echo again the comments of some of my hon. Friends in expressing


critical alarm at the statement made by the right hon. Member for Grantham that he would open the Treasury purse. He called upon the Government to open the purse strings much wider than they had been opened so far. I, too, have sympathy with the farming community, but is it not better in these debates that both sides of the House should be clear about the financial commitments involved? If it is true that more money ought to be given to the farmers, there are Treasury consequences, particularly for a party whose leading financial spokesman made such an interesting speech in the Chamber last Wednesday. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Grantham had cleared his speech with his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I was a bit surprised at certain back benchers opposite who have questioned the value of holding this debate. At least two were members of the Select Committee which reached the firm conclusion that a Select Committee should be a permanent institution to look over matters of the Price Review and to advise the Government on the feelings of the House. It seems that, having wound up the Select Committee, the least that the Government could have done was to have expressed their gratitude to the Opposition for having this debate.
Coming now to the Minister's speech, I must say that I was quite appalled at its content. He made no reference to the dilemma and anxieties facing the farming community, which are so manifest to everyone reading our newspapers. I can only think that he has been listening to too many speeches by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was the sort of sniping, evasive speech which we have come to expect from the right hon. Gentleman.
There was no mention of costs and of the present worries about the income position which is upsetting farmers. Let no one in the House doubt the seriousness of the situation facing many farmers. I know that it is a tradition for farmers to be disgruntled and perpetually dissatisfied. This time it is justified, and if anyone does not believe it I suggest that he goes to the countryside and talks to

country bank managers who are the best judges of the solvency of farming businesses. I do not know whether the Minister has heard of the meeting in my constituency last week, which was the biggest meeting of farmers in Kendal that anyone has been able to remember.
First, let me take the example of fertilisers. We know that the fertiliser manufacturers are extremely worried at this time of the year. There has been a much lower take-up in 1969 than previously. The great dilemma is, will demand come?
There are real doubts as to whether the extra amount of fertilisers which were in the shortfall of 1969 will be taken up. It cannot be said that farmers have not been willing to take up these fertilisers in 1969 because they worried about credit. As the Minister well knows, the manufacturers of fertilisers have farm storage schemes which means that farmers can take early delivery of fertilisers and not pay until the following spring. This means that there must be another reason, and it must surely be that many farmers have great worries about whether they can pay for fertilisers in the spring. This is an example of the writing on the wall.
A second such example, and this is very significant, is that of new tractor registrations. This is a guide to the amount of investment that farmers have been making. There has been a dramatic reduction in new tractor registrations in the first nine months of 1969 compared with the first nine months of 1968. There was a 12 per cent. drop, of over 3,300 tractors registered. It is clear that this is not just synthetic anger. It is not as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Haze11) suggested, a trade union exercise to accentuate the case and make it appear worse. This is genuine. The writing is on the wall, farmers are very worried and are facing great difficulties.
How has this happened? There are several reasons, but the one reason that I want to concentrate on is the matter of costs, which the Minister so glibly skated over. He told us about the rise in the guaranteed prices, but he did not tell us by how much costs have gone up in that period during this Government's husbandry of the industry. He did not tell us that in the first five years of Socialist administration farm costs rose by £185


million as compared with a rise of £87 million in a similar period under a Conservative Administration. To put it on a yearly basis is even more dramatic. He did not tell us that in five years of Socialism farmers' costs rose by £37 million a year, but rose by only £17 million per annum under five years of Conservative government.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must realise that he is distorting what I said. I made it clear that my costs took full account of costs in the last five years of Conservative administration and five years under our own Administration.

Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman spent much time boasting about the rise in guaranteed prices that his Government had brought about, completely ignoring the fact that his Administration's costs to farmers have been rising at £20 million a year more than did costs under the previous Conservative Administration.
Farmers are desperately worried. In marginal areas, in constituencies such as mine in the North-West, many farmers find themselves in their worst position for 30 years. Many farmers who have heeded Government entreaties to become more efficient, to invest more money in their businesses, and to go in for farm amalgamation by buying more land, now find themselves, as a result of listening to Government encouragment, with a millstone of borrowing round their necks on which, as a result of failure to get a proper return on capital, and of rising costs, they have not been able to service the interest charges.
There is now a clear duty on the Government to make sure that farmers in future are able to play their proper part in the expansion programme about which the Government still talk. There is still time for that to be done, but it is in the hands of the Government. We hope that the Minister will have the guts to stand up to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he fails, we hope that he will resign, as is his duty.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many hon. Members have sat all through the debate trying to get in. Mr. Watkins.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) because for two years he and I served on the Select Committee on Agriculture, as did his hon. Friends immediately in front and one to his left. I therefore have an audience which I can address directly.
I do not quarrel with the party opposite for initiating the debate, but one has to be careful in the selection of a subject. We get many statements when disputes are in progress, and the plea then made to the House is, "Do not let us have too much talk whilst the matter is in dispute". I regard this present debate as largely a matter of propaganda. I have been listening to debates for the last 25 years, and they have been quite good, but there is a different atmosphere in these debates, and I have come to the conclusion that the sooner agriculture is taken out of party politics the better.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has made a courageous speech when one bears in mind the demonstrations taking place throughout the country. He has also been attacked personally, which I do not like. Nor do I like his being told by a hon. Gentleman that his personal honour is at stake and that he should resign. His is a collective responsibility. I am sufficiently close to him to know his views on a number of matters, particularly with regard to sheep farming.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will have a sense of reality. I am not against all that they have said in this debate, but last week they opposed the granting of £½ million to farmers for the Mid-Wales Development Board. They cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said that agricultural land was depressed to the extent of £50 an acre. I hope that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will elaborate on that. I am a member of a local authority, and I will pass on the hon. Member's remarks to the district valuer there.
My right hon. Friend the Minister knows the position in Wales. He knows the angry farmers in Haverfordwest, but he also knows the calm people in my constituency. I attended the annual general meeting of the Brecon and


Radnor Farmers' Union. That is a very good association. Its members do not go out with tractors and placards, but they did far better by sending resolutions to the right quarter—not first to the Minister of Agriculture, but to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and then the Minister of Agriculture. We are gunning for the wrong Minister this afternoon. That is what we found in the Select Committee on Agriculture. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are the other Ministers?"] If I were a Whip I should see that they were here. Ministers who should be here listening to this debate are those of the Treasury and the Board of Trade.
We said this in discussions in the Select Committee on Agriculture but we never had a debate in which we could argue it. If there is one reason why that Committee should be in session it is this occasion before the Price Review. I go along with an hon. Member who said that there ought to be permanent advisers to the Minister of Agriculture from the House of Commons itself. If the Minister can consult the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and the farm workers' union, surely there are sufficient expert people in the House of Commons to advise him—not to argue on the Price Review and go through all the commodities but give him good advice. I hope that in time that will be put into operation.
From what I heard at the annual meeting of the farmers' union in my constituency, costs for small farmers and others have gone up a great deal. The comparison between 10 years ago and now is not the same in farming as in other industries. The Select Committee should be looking at what the farmer gets for his product and what the consumer pays.
The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and I are good friends. We have served on the same committees, and when he was the Minister he was exceptionally good in accepting Amendments that I put forward and some of the promises he made came to fruition. I admit that I have not read the statement of policy which he has produced. Perhaps it is delayed in the post or perhaps we are awaiting the Welsh ver-

sion by the Opposition spokesman on Welsh affairs.
The Minister knows about the difficulties of credit and the difficulties that farmers have in raising money at present. I say to him and to other members of the Government that if people are angry that does not mean that they put forward their case for political reasons. I have seen farmers, especially small farmers, this weekend, and I realise that they have a case. I hope that around the table in the Price Review discussions something will be done about it. If the Government can give in to demands for wage increases far in excess of what is required under the incomes policy, let them remember that here it is a question not of incomes policy but of giving a good standard of living to those in the industry.
Once again, I compliment the Minister on his courageous speech. It was courageous after what we have seen and heard throughout the country.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I want to underline what our national agricultural policy ought to be, and then to decide whether we are achieving it. There should be three objectives for our national agricultural policy. First, it should give a fair return on the capital invested in the farm, on the labour of the farmer and his family, and for the exercise of his management skills. That is a statutory obligation embodied in the 1947 Act.
Secondly, our policy should lead to a high-farming policy rather than a low one—in other words, high output per acre, rather than low output per acre. Every year we are losing about 50,000 acres of our better than average farm land, and our population is rising. So we must make it more profitable to go in for a high farming policy than a low one. If as a result of the Government policy farmers must follow a minimum cost policy—that is, a low output per acre policy—our national farming policy is at variance with what the economy needs.
Thirdly, our national agricultural policy should embody a full measure of import substitution, as the "little Neddy" recommended and as the Government accepted.
Those are the objectives which our national policy should have. Manifestly, that is not what is happening to agriculture. One of two propositions must be true. Either the Government have got the wrong policy, or they have the right policy but it has failed. There is no third alternative. By no stretch of the imagination could the Minister claim that farmers are receiving a fair return on their capital invested, on their own and their family's labour, and on their management skills. Demonstratably, they are not.
Under the present credit conditions and the near bankruptcy of the farmers who have followed the policy which the Government exhorted them to follow, namely, one of rapid expansion, all they can do now when they have run out of cash is follow a low-farming policy—a minimum cost policy—which is at variance whir what the Government declare their policy to be. This results in a complete failure to meet the import substitution targets, which were £160 million at constant prices, not at inflating prices, over a five-year period. So on all three counts the Government's policy has failed. That is exactly what the Motion says.
On 31st March last, the Government and their supporters trooped through the Division Lobby to assent to the following proposition:
That this House congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their decisions on the Annual Farm Price Review …
That was how that Motion began. It is quite clear that the Government's policy has failed miserably, not only to meet agriculture's needs, but also to meet the nation's needs.
My final point is this. There is not a conflict between the needs of agriculture and the needs of other sections of the community. The only known way of getting out of the cycle of punitive taxation, crushing interest rates, the miserable collapse of the national house building programme, quite unnecessarily high unemployment and everything that has gone with adverse balance of payments, is by a massive import-substitution programme. So the policy which I have outlined, and which should be obvious to the Minister, is not a sectarian policy just for the benefit of agriculture. It is what is needed by the country as a whole.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I hesitate to enter into this debate, not being a farmer, nor representing very many farmers. But, considering that the farmers make up only 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the population of this country, and that agricultural debates are almost always exclusively argued by farmers or by representatives of farming interests, I think it is fair that someone who might have the consumer interest primarily at heart should occasionally venture a word or two.
I venture a word or two in puzzlement, and I hope that my right hon. Friend when he replies will clear up some of the issues. I have listened with interest to the kind of arguments which have been presented on television by farmers' representatives. I have listened for lengthy periods to farmers on the B.B.C., and I must say that I do not know any section of the people who have so much opportunity to voice their views on their particular problems as the farming community. They certainly have much more opportunity to voice their views than have the steel workers, for example whom I represent, or the miners or other sections of our society. Nevertheless having listened, I am puzzled at what the argument is about.
As everyone knows, the farmer wants more money. I am not sure whether the farmer wants more money directly from the consumer—I think this is part of the argument at this stage—or whether he wants more money directly from the Government. But it seems to me that it has not emerged clearly what this Price Review is. A great deal has been said about the Price Review, and certainly the impression one gets from listening to these matters being discussed on the television and the radio is that the Government fix the price that will be paid for the various farming commodities, that there is a Government monopoly in this field, and that the Government deliberately keep farm prices down.
According to my understanding—and, no doubt, if I am wrong I shall be corrected—what the Government do in respect of the annual Price Review is to say, in effect, "We will set minimum prices. We will guarantee that if this particular commodity does not fetch this minimum price in the open market, with all the facilities one has for selling


one's product, we will make up the price to the minimum." If that is so, it is not a question of the Government fixing the price of the product. It is a matter of the Government guaranteeing that the farmers' price will not fall below a certain level.
However, if the farmer can sell his product at twice that price, I take it that the Government say, "Good luck to you. We are not paying any subsidy on that basis. The higher the price you get for your product in this open market, the better pleased we are because we are not paying any subsidy. We pay the subsidy only when the price falls below these particular levels." If that is the case, I have not yet heard it fairly presented in any of these arguments.
I have heard farmers talking about the rage they feel, of how badly they are treated. I know of their demonstrations and of how they have stopped ordinary traffic. I have seen their threats not to pay rates and taxes. When they threaten not to pay rates, I wonder just what it is they are threatening. My understanding is that the farmer pays rates only on his house, his domestic property. He does not pay rates on his many farm buildings. We recently passed a Measure in relation to factory farming enabling farmers to pay rates on the same sort of basis as the ordinary factory owner pays. Nevertheless, the farmer normally does not pay rates except on his domestic property.
I wonder whether the farmers, on this basis, think that it is really an enormous threat to hold over society to withhold their rates. After all, the farmer gets many benefits from the rates. His children go to school, for example, and there are many other facilities. I want this sort of thing to be cleared up.
Are the farmers arguing that we should scrap the Price Review system? I understand that such is the policy of hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) spoke over the weekend about getting rid of Government intervention and encouraging competition. The great cry is competition and efficiency. Is this what the farmers are asking for?
I suspect that many farmers are not of my political persuasion. I do not hold that against them, but do the

farmers say that we should scrap the Price Review and that they should simply sell their products on the market? That is fair enough if it is what they are saying. I do not think that I would oppose my right hon. Friends if that were the kind of Measure they were prepared to bring in, but I wonder whether that is really what the farmers are asking for.

Mr. R. T. Paget: What the farmers were offered by the Labour Government in the 1947 Act was an incomes policy. In pursuance of that policy, they have increased their efficiency by more than three times the rate of industry, and during that period they have been deprived of more than half of their slice of the national cake. If my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) thinks that that is fair, I do not.

Mr. Lawson: My very good friend the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) puts an excellent case—indeed, the best I have yet heard for the farmers. But I have here a document called, "Scottish Agricultural Economics, 1969". It lists subsidies and grants to agriculture in Scotland alone. There are grants for fertilisers, lime, ploughing, field beans, field drainage except tilling, calves, beef calves, hill cattle, sheep, hill sheep, uplands sheep, winter keep, silos, small farmers, small business records, crofters cropping, etc., among others, making a total for Scotland alone in that one category—there are three categories—of £23,770,000.
If I understand these figures correctly, they mean that the Government are pumping into farming in Scotland, to raise the efficiency and output of the industry, nearly £24 million a year. If the farmers are raising their productivity, fair enough. Are they doing it? I do not know.
We spend a lot of money running agricultural colleges. I understand that there was opposition from farmers when it was proposed that there should be an employee training scheme in the industry. If it is that new knowledge, techniques and skills and new tools, new fertilisers and so forth, are reaching the farmers on the basis of very large public subsidies, then these things should be taken into account when we are discussing how


much the farmers have raised productivity.
I gather that our farmers are saying that they are the most competent in the world, and that may be right. But if they are, what is the trouble? I gather again that what the farmers want at this stage is that the Government should largely control the imports of food into the country. I understand that this is a large part of the policy that the Opposition are offering. I do not quite understand where competition enters into it here. We have all this talk of competition and efficiency, but apparently what the farmers want is to shut out products from less efficient farmers abroad. Is this not really a process of organised scarcity so that prices can be pushed up? If that is what the farmers are asking for, it should be made clear to the people. It is my puzzlement that the people are not aware of what is the case. It should be made abundantly clear what the situation is.
In Scotland there are about 48,000 employees in the agricultural industry. The 1968–69 figure showed that the total of subsidies, in the form of price guarantees, relevant production grants and others under the heading of "other grants and subsidies", produced a total in those three categories of £51,790,000. That is substantially more than £1,000 of public money for every employee in agriculture in Scotland. That is fair enough if the farmers have a good case, but let us hear the case. So far I have heard little, not only here but outside, except the anti-Labour propaganda on this theme. Hon. Members should represent consumers, too.
By all means let us look after the interests of the farmers, but let us make clear what we are doing and not have so many garbled arguments which are partisan in the most extreme form usual when hon. Members opposite talk about the interests of farmers.

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that the Opposition Front Bench will intervene at twenty minutes past 10 o'clock.

10.8 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I welcome the opportunity to reply shortly to both the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. Member for

Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I want particularly to fasten at once on the peroration of the speech of the Minister of Agriculture when he described the activities of my right hon. and hon. Friends today as "cynical and opportunistic"; cynical, no doubt, because he believes that we are intent upon endeavouring to take party advantage of the discontent of farmers.

Mr. Lawson: indicated assent.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Member for Motherwell at once nods in assent. I reply to him and the Minister at once.
I have only one industry in my constituency—farming. Certainly, two-thirds of the farming interest is agricultural and one-third is horticultural. I have no other industry and surely it cannot be cynical to represent in the House of Commons what I described in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) as the seething discontent of Worcestershire farmers. They have sent me here charged with that discontent, to express it on their behalf, discontent as to prices, discontent as to taxation, discontent as to exorbitant interest rates, discontent as to curtailment of credit, discontent as to a deluge of cheap, foreign, dumped produce on the British market. These are their legitimate grievances.
As for "opportunistic"; the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) has been in the House for a relatively short while, but I spent the whole of the 1950s and a substantial part of the 1960s endeavouring to explain to Governments first and to my farming interests second how an Annual Price Review is impressed upon the House of Commons without prior debate or debate in retrospection, save only by a Motion of censure by the Opposition. This is certainly the first time since 1950 and, I believe, the first time since the war, that the Price Review has been debated in depth before the Review has occurred.

Mr. Godber: indicated assent.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am glad to have the confirmation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber).
How can it be opportunistic—a ghastly word; I doubt that it exists in an English dictionary, but as the right hon.


Gentleman used it, I will repeat it—for my right hon. and hon. Friends and I to come here today to repeat our grievances on behalf of the farmers?
In the couple of minutes available to me I will deal with the hon. Member for Motherwell. In one passage in his speech he said proudly that he represented steel workers and coal miners. Good luck to him! I wish that I did. But I represent farmers and they are the salt of the earth.

Mr. Lawson: It used to be carpet workers who were the salt of the earth.

Sir G. Nabarro: It used to be carpet workers, but, through a disability lasting only a few weeks, I had to change my constituency; but that is for the benefit of the House as well as my constituents.
I was about to say that farmers and farm workers in Worcestershire would get along without the coal and without the steel produced in the hon. Member's constituency, but his steel workers and his coal miners would not get along and do a day's work without a bellyful of good Worcestershire food. Food takes priority and is is more important.
However, if the hon. Member wants to talk about prices, I will give him a little dose of his own medicine. Lord Robens conveniently arranged for the price of coal to go up by 10 per cent. from 1st January, notwithstanding all the exhortations by the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to keep prices stable. As for steel; the hon. Member has not even read the tape tonight.

Mr. Lawson: rose—

Sir G. Nabarro: I am not giving way, so the hon. Member need not get ants in his pants; I have only two minutes and he took too long anyway.
If he had read the tape, he would have seen that steel prices are to rise tomorrow by 11 to 13 per cent. Coal is to go up by 10 per cent. and steel is to go up by 11 to 13 per cent. The seamen are asking for a 50 per cent. rise; the policemen are asking for 14 per cent.; the nurses for 22 per cent.; building workers are getting 26 per cent. I could go on through this whole catalogue of price rises, this roaring inflation set in train

by devaluation by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Why should not the farmers participate by increases in the price of food? All their costs have risen mightily. Their nett income in aggregate has remained almost static since the Labour Party took office. The latest published figure—even that is subject to confirmation—for 1968–69, is £472 million. The N.F.U. is asking for £650 million.
I will not comment on whether the increase is too large or too small, but I have formed the opinion that the prices of all review commodities should be advanced by 5s. in the £ to recoup farmers for their losses, for their increases in costs in the last two years and for their prospective increases in costs in the next 12 months. In other words, there should be a 25 per cent. advance in review commodities, and I direct that comment particularly to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) who may be an agricultural economist and a professorial academic in agricultural matters, but who, if he had to live in the muck and manure of agriculture, might begin to understand these matters.

Mr. Mackintosh: Do you?

Sir G. Nabarro: Yes, I do. I live in the middle of it, in the Vale of Evesham and that is why I understand the dilemma of the farmers I represent.
Although the horticulturist is probably even worse off than the farmer, we have not heard a word about horticultural interests. Horticultural prices are utterly depressed. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, said that Evesham apples were not sold in Leith for 2d. a lb. But they were, and when I proved that to him he said that they were rotten apples. In fact, they were good Cox's Orange Pippins, well graded and packed.
Why in the Vale of Evesham or in Coventry and Birmingham are Californian radishes being sold today? We are exporting Rolls-Royce engines, Jaguar motor cars and every manner of sophisticated engineering product to the United States to earn dollars which we dissipate by buying Californian radishes. This is a splendid example for the schools of Bathos. This is a policy of import substitution in reverse, and I declaim it.
When the Prime Minister made his statement to the House in July, 1967, he said that we must balance our trade not only by achieving a real increase in the value of our exports but by having a real diminution in the value of our imports, a policy of import substitution. He brought the entire House of Commons back the following January, 1968, with a gust of propaganda and publicity to hear his crisis statement on economic affairs, but he did not mention agriculture or horticulture in that statement.
I asked about this earlier, and the right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, "If we can get more agricultural production at a reasonable price, we will arrange to do so". and he went on to agree that import substitution was important. But there has been no import substitution in agriculture or horticulture. There cannot be any simply because our prices are so utterly depressed.
I promise the Minister that when he stigmatised this debate by using the words "cynical" and "opportunistic" he started something. I assure him that those words will be used in every one of the 66 speeches that I shall deliver in the Worcestershire, South constituency in the forthcoming General Election to decimate the Labour candidate there, poor fellow, and to emphasise once again what I sincerely believe and about which I blew off to the farmers of Pershore, which is that we have today the worst Minister of Agriculture in history.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: This debate is about the situation in farming about which everybody—apart from those, I suspect, comparatively few people who do not watch television, listen to the radio or read the newspapers—must know. It is a situation which has been brought about by the agricultural policy of the Government.
One or two hon. Gentlemen, and the Minister himself, have asked why we are having this debate just now. The Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said, described it as cynical and opportunist, and an hon. Gentleman behind him said it was a stunt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) pointed out that

this was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee, and one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite who were on that Committee have subscribed to that view. That alone was, possibly, a good reason. But, apart from that, if the House of Commons is to be in touch with the country at all—and heaven help us if we cease to be in touch—how could it fail to take note of the present situation, genuinely felt, with disturbances and unrest, in so many parts of the United Kingdom?
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may try, as they have tried, to deflect the arguments which we have put forward on the failure of their own policy by questioning the merits of the policy advanced by the Opposition. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he never even moved his Amendment, let alone referred to it in his speech.
The fact remains that an agricultural industry which five years ago had an edifice is today virtually down to its bare foundations. The policy has failed in that production from the land of Britain has slumped since the Government took office. An increase of 3 per cent. per year in our day has been turned into one of 3 per cent. over the period since 1964, and that can fairly be described as nothing but failure. The Government's policy has had the effect of reducing the increase in net income, a figure which right hon. Gentlemen, particularly the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, were very shy of referring to in the debate last March. It has reduced the increase in net income from about £80 million in the last four reviews prior to the last general election to only £5 million over the four reviews since. That is not only a failure. It has been nothing short of a disaster. This is why the farmers are demonstrating today.

Mr. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stodart: With great respect, this is a short debate, and I should like to continue, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me.
Farmers have had their ups and downs before, but never has the trough been so wide and so deep as it is just now. If I recall aright, the Secretary of State for Scotland had his effigy burnt in Kilmarnock after the 1965 Price Review.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): No.

Mr. Stodart: Then the report in the agricultural Press must have been most erroneous, because there were headlines about it. I do not think that that had ever happened to a Secretary of State for Scotland before. But, at least, the Secretary of State can take pride in saying that he has not had to surround himself with members of the Special Branch and remove himself down the back stairs. Perhaps that is a treat still in store for him.
Never have such widespread demonstrations taken place as are taking place now.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Gentleman refers to demonstrations. I was at one of these demonstrations in Northampton, the biggest meeting I have ever seen in Northampton. The theme of the meeting was complaint against the N.F.U. for having betrayed the farming interests and for failing adequately to oppose the Conservative Government when they introduced the 1957 Act, which ruined agriculture. That was the whole attitude of that meeting.

Mr. Stodart: With respect, that is not exactly what I believe to be the motive behind the demonstrations throughout the country.
The Government may ask themselves why all this should have happened. "Look at all the awards we have made", they say, "Why has this happened?" The Minister of Agriculture went through what he thought were many of the good ace cards which the Government had played during the last four years. Look at the awards: £10 million in 1965, £23 million in 1966, and so on up to the last one in 1969. But this gives us—I put this as a point of some interest to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson)—a classic example of the subsidy system no longer being the answer.
If one wants a classic example of that, one finds it in the hills and high ground. The subsidies have been raised substantially for that sector of the industry, yet incomes have been falling steadily. It is, therefore, an entirely negative and unworthwhile operation.
The general malaise from which the industry is suffering stems from the fact—here, my assessment is entirely different

from that of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell)—that the profits and the returns which are given on capital still vary widely from one farm to another, and we shall never level this out entirely. I entirely agree with what has been said about the difficulties of small farms, and I add to that the great difficulties of hill farms. But what is now especially alarming is that the profits being made on any farm, be it small or large and no matter how well run, are not high enough to enable tax to be paid, living expenses to be drawn, and plant and equipment improved and developed, without increasing the requirement for an overdraft.
Running expenses have got the better of us. When I say that, I am not looking at just a single year's figures. I went into my present farm exactly 12 years ago. By the end of the first six years, by dint of what I like to think was good management, I had managed to reduce expenditure on what I call, for want of a better expression, the power house of the farm, that is, the items without which the farm could not run—the wages, the upkeep of machinery, fuel costs, electricity costs and so on. All that I had managed to reduce in those first six years. Now, however, this group costs me £1,300 a year more than it did six years ago.
Farm costs are creeping mercilessly up by between 3 and 5 per cent. every year, stimulated by measures such as the Transport Act and what I think is the most pernicious of all taxes, the S.E.T. Although it is true that farmers get a refund of the S.E.T., nearly all the services, machinery repairs, foodstuff merchants, and so on, are subject to it, and our costs have therefore been driven up. Haulage rates in the Edinburgh area for livestock were raised by 15 per cent. in October last, and another rise of l2½ per cent. has just been announced. If that is not adding appalling burdens on costs to the industry, I do not know what is.
I believe that I am typical of many farmers, and therefore I might perhaps say to the House what I said to an audience of young farmers the other night. I find it extremely difficult to see how, if I had not had a parliamentary salary during the last few years, I would still be farming what is admittedly not one of the easiest or the most productive


of farms, although I believe that there are hundreds of farms which are less good. I could not have avoided hitting my head against the overdraft ceiling imposed upon the banks by the Treasury.
This is why there is the very disturbing situation that many farms on each side of the Firth of Forth are for sale, but they are not being advertised, because, if they were, the creditors would move in very quickly. This is a most alarming situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said that he hoped the Government were alive to this situation. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North assured us that they were. This is not the Victorian melodrama which the right hon. Gentleman said it was when the situation was described to him in Committee. That is what he alleged it to be, and it is doubly devastating when the Ministers who are responsible for this industry either do not or dare not know the truth.
I believe that the root cause of almost all the difficulty is that I have my doubts about whether the Government really believe in expanding agriculture at home. If they do believe in it, imports must be reduced. Nothing but chaos results if the Government call for an increase in production, and at the same time bring in the same amount of imports, or even increase them. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe, as does Mr. Catherwood, who a month or two ago, in the best speech that I have ever heard from an industrialist, that import saving is essential to the balance of payments, and that agriculture can make a huge contribution to it?
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said that there had been no import substitution. How right he is. What makes me so doubtful about the Government's belief is to hear the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) admitting that temporate food imports have increased by 17 per cent. in value over nine months of this year compared with nine months last year. There is no import substitution there. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) confirmed the view, which was expressed by the Secretary of State in the debate on 31st March, that we must always keep our eye on exports. This makes me more than doubtful whether the views of the "little Neddy" and the

Select Committee have not fallen on Government ears which are totally and absolutely deaf.
On the radio on Saturday morning, I listened to a discussion on the problem of import-saving or export-winning and which was the more important. One of those taking part said:
It is really a question of deciding whether Great Britain is to be an agricultural or an industrial nation.
[An HON. MEMBER: "What nonsense."] Of course, it is nothing like a question of that kind. It is a question as to whether it makes sense to spend as much as £800 million on importing food which we could grow here, the bulk of it from countries with which we have a deficit every year of over £400 million and which do not, I believe, and will not, buy our motor cars because we buy their bacon or butter but which will buy our motor cars or our aircraft only if we can meet other competitors in price and delivery date. That is the reason for those countries from which we buy our food, buying our exports.
Is there not a very strong case for an increase in home production and a consequent drop in imports? The "little Neddy" thinks so, the Select Committee thinks so and we certainly think so, but we do not think that the Treasury can take on the additional burden which the cost of expansion on this scale under the present deficiency payment system would impose. I absolutely agree with the comment made by the Leader of the Liberal Party that probably in all this the Treasury is, if I may use the word without getting into trouble with the Race Relations Board, the nigger in the woodpile.
Hence comes our determination that prices in the market, in conjunction with dm production grants, must be good enough to meet the increased production which the nation needs. Not only shall we thereby give our balance of payments the best of all tonics, but we shall be able to cut public expenditure and taxation as well.
Of course, there will be increased cost of food, and we have not sought to deny this—2 per cent. a year over three years, coupled with tax reductions and social benefits, compared with a rise of 7 per cent. since devaluation plus swingeing


tax increases as well. That is the contrast. A marginal increase of 2 per cent. a year would be well worth while when looked at beside the benefits to the balance of payments.
The right hon. Gentleman has told of the Labour record on higher prices. I would only add this. No one who has subscribed to our application to enter the E.E.C. has any right to cavil at the market increases which are spelt out here.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will recall a debate in which he took part in the Scottish Grand Committee. I dare say he does because it was the first time, I think he told me, that he had made a speech on agriculture, and it was in 1960. The right hon. Gentleman said two things which, I thought, were interesting and relevant to today. He said:
We are dealing with a serious subject, because Scottish farmers do not get upset over nothing.
He added:
I think Scottish agriculture is in a pretty healthy position."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 28th June, 1960; c. 108–115.]
That was back in 1960.
Anxiety among the farming community, both north and south of the Border, and, I suspect, in Northern Ireland as well, is more deep-seated and wider spread than I have ever known it. But farmers, as everyone knows, are the greatest optimists in the world. They always have to be. They will already have observed one growing patch of brightness in the clouds above them. They know as well as we do that the Government's time is running out, that this will probably be their last Review. As we do, they give profound thanks that this is so.

10.41 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I was beginning to enjoy the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), especially when he referred to a speech which I had made in 1960. I have not checked it, but he will appreciate that in 1958–59 the net farm income was £333 million, or exactly £16 million less than it had been in 1952–53. I presume that it was good Tory management which led to that increase.
As for wishing on the Scottish farmers a new Administration and Secretary of State, I am sure that that remark will alarm them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they did not burn me in effigy in 1965. There was a certain amount of wonderment in the streets of Kilmarnock then when they saw lorries passing through bearing the slogan, "Peart must go". They had not a clue who "Peart" was.
Their concern and the concern of Scotland is always with the Secretary of State. I think that they showed commendable discretion in not saying, "Ross must go". A year later there was a General Election and my majority rose considerably. So the hon. Gentleman had better not remind us of these things. [Interruption.] No, I have only 18 minutes in which to wind up, so I hope that there will be no interventions.
The hon. Member referred to the timing of the debate. I, and, I am sure, everybody on this side, welcomes an agriculture debate. Indeed, I have often referred jocularly to the price review having started a little early this year. Normally, we have a debate some time in the month of December. But the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said that this debate and its timing is unprecedented.
When hon. Gentlemen ask for figures which cannot possibly be made available, for the simple reason that, in our negotiations with the farmers, we deal with figures which are as up to date as possible, which are being processed at present and which have not yet been agreed, they are asking a little too much, especially since notice of this debate was only given towards the end of last week.
The hon. Member quoted some facts about food prices, implying certain devastating things about us, and said that we should not object to his proposals raising food prices by 6 per cent. The answer given last week was that, during the years of Tory administration, food prices rose by an average of 3·5 per cent per year, as against 4·1 per cent. during our years. Therefore, what we are arguing about is that there are inflationary trends, which have been there a long time. No doubt, if there were a change of Administration, they would continue. But what he is proposing is


to raise prices, over and above those inflationary trends, by 6 per cent.
Many people who have studied the right hon. Gentleman's proposals have asked whether he has made adequate allowance for, say, margins in distribution as large as the increases. These are questions which cannot readily be resolved.
The hon. Member suggested that there had been reports of an increasing number of bankruptcies in the past year. The Sunday Times said that there had been five times the number of bankruptcies. The Board of Trade has not yet analysed the figures for the final quarter of 1969, but in the first three-quarters there were 138 bankruptcies compared with 174 in the whole of 1968 and 232 in 1967. There is no indication of an increase, so that, again, the hon. Member's figures are wrong.
One of the difficulties about discussing agricultural policy is that we tend to talk about agriculture generally as one industry when in fact there are contained in it six, seven, eight or even nine industries. These are sections of the industry which look upon themselves as quite separate. Meat and livestock regards itself as one industry, and within it the sheep industry looks upon itself as completely separate. The same remark is true about cereals. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) complained of a failure by the Minister to mention horticulture. But horticulture was not in the Motion, so that the hon. Member must blame not us but his right hon. Friends. There is usually a lack of communication between him and his Front Bench.
Even when we examine a section of the industry—sheep or meat and livestock or cereals or potatoes, for example—we find that, geographically, different conditions apply even within one year. One section of the industry can be doing very well while another is doing badly. That is one of the difficulties about producing general policies which will benefit everyone.
Trends last year and the previous year which are bound to affect incomes disastrously included the disastrously bad weather at particular times of the year in certain parts of the country. The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr.

Tapsell) spoke about that. He will appreciate that we could have the best Price Review in the world, but if the weather were such that the potato crop rotted in the ground, he could not hold the Government responsible, or its pricing policy responsible, for that—and it has happened in some parts of the country. It happened to the sheep industry in Scotland in 1966–67.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the right hon. Member blaming it all on the weather?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Member knew anything about the facts of farming he would appreciate that no Government can guarantee a farmer against bad weather which affects his planting, growing or harvesting. No Government in the world can guarantee a farmer against the effect of that disaster which hit agriculture in England and Wales the year before last—foot-and-mouth disease.
This is one of the difficulties about the right hon. Gentleman's selective statistics on farming incomes. Unless he wants The Government to accept responsibility for the weather, such selections of farm incomes are nonsense. He knows that had he taken as his base year 1963–64 and compared it with the previous year, he would have found in one year under the Tory rule a drop in farm incomes of about £39 million. All this is so much nonsense.
I want to say something about the Scottish position, because generally speaking Scottish farmers over the past two years have had far better weather conditions than those in the south—something which anyone booking a holiday should remember. That was despite the cold and late spring of 1969. To this extent they have been more fortunate than English farmers, and the harvest in 1969, particularly in main cropping areas, went exceptionally smoothly. Many people have never known such a harvest.
The Scottish cereal acreage in 1969 fell marginally, yields were above average, and cereal production was 1,691,000 tons, or an increase of 8 per cent. on the previous year. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West knows that. The potato acreage declined by 12 per cent., but yields were above average and production was only 9 per cent. lower. Prices have been much higher than in 1968 so that the value of the potato crop in


Scotland is estimated to be £3,500,000 higher than last year. The hon. Gentleman should be pleased to have these figures.
In Scotland there has been a particularly encouraging increase in beef cattle. The December 1969 census indicates an increase of 8 per cent. in the breeding herd and 9 per cent. in the total number of beef cattle. The hon. Gentleman never mentioned that. The number of young calves slaughtered is estimated at 65,000 this year compared with 80,000 last year, indicating that more animals are being reared for beef. These figures suggest that beef production should increase in the next year or two, in line with the selective expansion programme.
As to sheep, the hon. Gentleman should know that during the four or five years of his Government there was a squeeze on the sheep industry. We have barely recovered from that. That, together with the rise in barley, means a completely changed pattern in respect of rearing and fattening of sheep. The fall there has been in fattening in the Lowland areas. What we have been doing, with a certain measure of success, is trying to get more fattening in the upland areas. To that extent we have shaped our policies.
Pigs in Scotland in 1969 reached a record level of over 600,000; the June returns show an increase of 9 per cent. above the previous year and the December returns show an increase of 3 per cent. The expansion has been particularly noticeable in the North-East.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he intends to do about the difficulties in respect of credit?

Mr. Ross: The credit squeeze applied to every section of industry in the country and we cannot completely exempt agriculture from it.
I have certain interesting figures in respect of the take-up of capital grants in Scotland which seem to belie the despairing picture painted by some people. Investment in farm buildings and other improvements is running at a high level, and the figures for the main capital grants scheme show a rising trend in recent years, including last year. This is borne out by greater expenditure in Scotland. The Scottish estimate for the

farm improvement scheme is £2·64 million compared with expenditure of £1·77 million in 1968–69. This is an indication of the kind of improvement on which expansion is to be based. For the hill land improvement scheme, the corresponding figures are £600,000 this year compared with £226,000 the year before. There is nothing wrong with investment.
Now I want to come to Joseph, with his coat of many colours. The right hon. Gentleman has so much confidence in this that for every paragraph he has a cover. He gives nothing in this pamphlet. In fact, what are the last words? In "Conclusions", we read:
But it is not a blueprint for the proposed changeover. We have already taken advice from people throughout the industry, and we shall hold full discussions before proceeding to implement it.
It is even better in page 14:
Should we discover that the problems posed by any particular commodity are not soluble at that time through a levy system"—
I thought that he had it all worked out—
then we shall maintain the deficiency payments in their present form for that commodity as long as they may be required.
Who is to determine whether there is a problem? Is it to be the farmer? This is all Mark III. The right hon. Gentleman went to the farmers purely on the levy scheme—they threw it out. He went back and suggested support buying—they threw it out. So he comes back with this suggestion, and he has every conceivable variation and possibility in it. Is he to run two separate administrative schemes, one for levies and target prices and one for deficiency payments? That smacks of firm government, does it not?
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite just do not know. It is just not on, and the right hon. Gentleman himself knows it. The position is, I think, put rightly in an article in The Times this morning.
As one who has always considered the mechanism of agricultural support in Britain or in Europe much less important than the price level at which it is supposed to operate. I took up that point with Mr. Godber recently. I was not surprised to find that it had also occurred to at least one of his farming audiences and that he was not prepared to commit himself on it in advance.
The point is, at what rate is his target price to be added? How high is it to be? He tells us, in order to cover certain aspects of tax, savings, and so on, that


it will be fairly high. The present guaranteed price in respect of beef is 215s. per cwt. That means that the market price ranges from about 185s. to about 190s. It means that in order to cover what he says the right hon. Gentleman himself must have a target price of about 30s. or 40s. above that. It means, too, that according to the market they will never reach it. Does he think that by a reduction of imports of 1 per cent. a year he will give all these guarantees to the farmers? He says that there is a guaranteed price, but where is the guaranteed price to be? He does not tell us that, but we know pretty well that it will be low. The target price will be on the floor. If it is near the target price that the farmers would like, he cannot make the savings that the Treasury demands from him.
This is it. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have not got over the trauma of 1960–61 when we had a Supplementary Estimate of about £80 million or £90 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "£70 million."]—but with the addition of

other estimates it was over £100 million. They have not got over that. What they started to do was to save the taxpayer. They did not mind about the consumer or the farmer. Now they say, "We are mindful of the farmer. We shall pass all the cost to the consumer". The right hon. Gentleman is throwing aside a reasonable system that can give stability in markets for uncertainty and taking us back to the chaos in agriculture into which the Tories led us—

Mr. Godber: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Ross: There ought to have been a chorus of "Poor Old Joe" while this pamphlet was being put forward. It is a disgraceful document. If this debate is not an electioneering debate, this pamphlet is certainly an electioneering pamphlet.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 235.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Concannon, J. D.
Foley, Maurice


Albu, Austen
Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ford, Ben


Alldritt, Walter
Crawshaw, Richard
Forrester, John


Allen, Scholefield
Cronin, John
Fowler, Gerry


Anderson, Donald
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Freeson, Reginald


Ashley, Jack
Dalyell, Tam
Galpern, Sir Myer


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Darling, Rt. Hn, George
Gardner, Tony


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Garrett, W. E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Ginsburg, David


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Golding, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Barnes, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Barnett, Joel
Delargy, H. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bence, Cyril
Dell, Edmund
Gregory, Arnold


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dewar, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Bidwell, Sydney
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Binns, John
Dickens, James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Bishop, E. S.
Dobson, Ray
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Blackburn, F.
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Driberg, Tom
Hamling, William


Booth, Albert
Dunn, James A.
Hannan, William


Boston, Terence
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Bottomley Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)


Boyden, James
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Haseldine, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Eadie, Alex
Hattersley, Roy


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hazell, Bert


Brooks, Edwin
Ellis, John
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Broughton, Sir Alfred
English, Michael
Henig, Stanley



Ennals, David
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ensor, David
Hilton, W. S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Faulds, Andrew
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fernyhough, E.
Howie, W.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Huckfield, Leslie


Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Castle, Rt Hn. Barbara
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)




Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rose, Paul


Hunter, Adam
Maxwell, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hynd, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Rowlands, E.


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Ryan, John


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Mendelson, John
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Robert


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Molloy, William
Silverman Julius


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Moonman, Eric
Skeffington, Arthur


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Slater, Joseph


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Judd, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William


Kelley, Richard
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Murray, Albert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Neal, Harold
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Latham, Arthur
Newens, Stan
Swain, Thomas


Lawson, George
Norwood, Christopher
Taverne, Dick


Leadbitter, Ted
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ogden, Eric
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thornton, Ernest


Lee, John (Reading)
Oram, Albert E.
Tinn, James


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Orme, Stanley
Tomney, Frank


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Oswald, Thomas
Tuck, Raphael


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'[...])
Urwin, T. W.


Lipton, Marcus
Padley, Walter
Varley, Eric G.


Lomas, Kenneth
Paget, R. T.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Loughlin, Charles
Palmer, Arthur
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Luard, Evan
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


McBride, Neil
Pavitt, Laurence
Weitzman, David


McCann, John
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wellbeloved, James


MacColl, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



MacDermot, Niall
Pentland, Norman
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Macdonald, A. H.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Whitaker, Ben


McElhone, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
White, Mrs. Eirene


McGuire, Michael
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Whitlock, William


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Price, William (Rugby)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mackie, John
Probert, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Randall, Harry
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Rankin, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rees, Merlyn
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Woof, Robert


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Manuel, Archie
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Mapp, Charles
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Marquand, David
Roebuck, Roy
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Brewis, John
Crouch, David


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crowder, F. P.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Currie, G. B. H.


Astor, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bryan, Paul
Dance, James


Awdry, Daniel
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Raker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dean, Paul


Balniel, Lord
Burden, F. A,
Deedes. Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Batsford, Brian
Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Donnelly, Desmond


Bell, Ronald
Carlisle, Mark
Doughty, Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Drayson, G. B.


Bessell, Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Biffen, John
Chataway, Christopher
Eden, Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Clark, Henry
Emery, Peter


Black, Sir Cyril
Clegg, Walter
Errington, Sir Eric


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Body, Richard
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Fair, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cordle, John
Fisher, Nigel


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Corfield, F. V.
Fortescue, Tim


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Costain, A. P.
Foster, Sir John


Braine, Bernard
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugr(St'fford &amp; Stone)







Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lubbock, Eric
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Glovnr, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Royle, Anthony


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Goodhart, Philip
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Scott, Nicholas


Good hew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cower, Raymond
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Sharpies, Richard


Grant, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Silvester, Frederick


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Grieve, Percy
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Grimond, Rt Hn. J.
Marten, Neil
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stainton, Keith


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray



Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, Anthony


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hay, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Temple, John M.


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Heseltine, Michael
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Higgins, Terence L.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John


Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hill, J. E. B.
Neave, Airey
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wadding ton, David


Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hordern, Peter
Nott, John
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Howell, David (Guildford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wall, Patrick


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Iremonger, T. L.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Ward, Dame Irene


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Welts, John (Maidstone)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pardon, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wiggin, A. W.


Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Peyton, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pink, R. Bonner
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kershaw, Anthony
Pounder, Rafton
Woodnutt, Mark


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Worsley, Marcus


Kitson, Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wright, Esmond


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pym, Francis
Wylie, N. R.


Lambton, Viscount
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Younger, Hn. George


Lancaster, Col. C G.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter



Lane, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Jasper More.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 236.

Division No. 52.]
AYES
[11.13 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Crawshaw, Richard


Albu, Austen
Booth, Albert
Cronin, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boston, Terence
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Alldritt, Walter
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Allen, Scholefield
Boyden, James
Daly ell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)


Ashley, Jack
Brooks, Edwin
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Davies, Ifor (Cower)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Delargy, H. J.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Brown, Bob (N' c' tie -upon-Tyne, W.)
Dell, Edmund


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dempsey, James


Barnes, Michael
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dewar, Donald


Barnett, Joel
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Bence, Cyril
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dickens, James


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dobson, Ray


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Carmichael, Neil
Doig, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Driberg, Tom


Rinns, John
Concannon, J. D.
Dunn, James A.


Bishop, E. S.
Conlan, Bernard
Dunnett, Jack


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)




Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Ellis, John
Latham, Arthur
Pentland, Norman


English, Michael
Lawson, Ceorge
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, s.


Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Ensor, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, John (Reading)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Randall, Harry


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus
Rankin, John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rees, Merlyn


Fetripr.Rt.Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Richard, Ivor


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Luard, Evan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Foley, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, s)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McBride, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ford, Ben
McCann, John
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'a)


Forrester, John
MacColl, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fowler, Gerry
MacDermot, Niall
Roebuck, Roy


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Macdonald, A. H.
Rose, Paul


Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael
Rowlands, E.



McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Ryan, John


Gardner, Tony
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John
Sheldon, Robert


Ginshurg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Golding, John
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silverman, Julius


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacPherson, Malcolm
Skeffington, Arthur


Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Slater, Joseph


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Small, William


Griffiths, Erldie (Brightside)
Manuel, Archie
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, 1


Cunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Marks, Kenneth



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn, Richard
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hamling, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Swain, Thomas


Hannan, William
Maxwell, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mcllish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Haseldine, Norman
Mendelson, John
Thornton, Ernest


Hattersley, Roy
Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Hazell, Bert
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Urwin, T. W.


Henig, Stanley
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Varley, Eric G.


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Vail


Hilton, W. S.
Moonman, Eric
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hooley, Frank
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Weitzman, David


Howie, W.
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Albert
Whitaker, Ben


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Newens, Stan
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Norwood, Christopher
Wilkins, W. A.


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Oram, Albert E.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Janner, Sir Barnett
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter
Wyatt, Woodrow


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Paget, R. T.



Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry


Judd, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Balniel, Lord
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Black, Sir Cyril


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Batsford, Brian
Blaker, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bell, Ronald
Body, Richard


Astor, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Bossom, Sir Clive


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Awdry, Daniel
Bessell, Peter
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Biffen, John
Braine, Bernard


Baker, [...]. H. K. (Banff)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brewis, John







Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bruce-Ganlyne, J.
Hastings, Stephen
Pardoe, John


Bryan, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, J. E. B.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Oarr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Gary, Sir Robert
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hordern, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter



Hornby, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chataway, Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clark, Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Corille, John
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)
Royle, Anthony


Corfield, F. V.
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott, Nicholas


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Crouch, David
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharpies, Richard


Crowder, F. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Frederick


Currie, G. B. H.
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dance, James
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speed, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Dean, Paul
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stodart, Anthony


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Donnelly, Desmond
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


Doughty, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Drsyson, G. B.
Mackenzie, Alasdalr (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Temple, John M.


Eden, Sir, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliot, Capt. waiter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tilney, John



McNair-Wilson, Michael



Errington, Sir Eric
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Farr, John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Waddington, David


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Foster, Sir John
Maudlins, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Galbraith, Hn. T, G.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Glover, Sir Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Welts, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Monro, Hector
whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, A. W.


Coodhart, Philip
Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Cower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Woodnutt, Mark


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Worsley, Marcus


Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey
Wright, Esmond


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wylie, N. R.


Gulden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Younger, Hn. George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nott, John



Hail-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Mr. Jasper More.

Resolved,
That this House fully supports the agricultural policy of Her Majesty's Government in

the interests of producers and consumers alike, both of whose interests would be prejudiced by the policy advocated by the Opposition.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1969–70

It being one hour after Ten o'clock Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith in respect of such outstanding estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as had been presented not less than seven clear days previously, the Question that the total amount outstanding be granted for the purposes defined in these Supplementary Estimates.

Motion made, and Question
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £228,449,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1970 for expenditure in respect of the Supplementary Estimates set out in House of Commons Paper No. 31.—[Mr. Taverne.]

put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution, the Resolution of 1st December relating to Defence (Army) Supplementary Estimate, 196970, and the Resolution of 22nd January relating to Civil Estimates, 1970–71 (Vote on Account), by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Dick Taverne.

CONSOLIDATED FUND

Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March, 1970 and 1971, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

WETHERBY BORSTAL (ABSCONDERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: I am glad of the opportunity, at this relatively early hour, to raise on the Adjournment a matter which is causing a good deal of local concern in the Wetherby area of my constituency; namely, the large and growing number of trainees in the Wetherby open borstal who are breaking out and doing damage in the locality.
Some idea of the scale of the problem may be obtained from the statistics of break-outs in recent years. I take as the base year, in making a comparison, 1961, when the average daily population of Wetherby borstal was 105 trainees. During that year 22 trainees absconded. To make the comparison meaningful, let us assume that all the break-outs occurred on one day. We then find that, taking the average population of the borstal, there was a break-out rate of 20 per cent. In other words, 22 out of 105 trainees absconded.
In 1968, the latest year for which I have full figures, there was an average daily population of trainees at the borstal of 229. No fewer than 147 of them absconded in that year. Represented on the somewhat artificial basis of assuming that all the break-outs occurred on one day, 63 per cent. of the trainees absconded, a three-fold increase.
Two facts emerge. First, the number of absconders, as a percentage of the average daily population of this open borstal, has been rising dramatically; and, secondly—perhaps more seriously from the point of view of my constituents—the absolute numbers of those who break out are now considerably greater than they were, say, a decade ago; from 22 per annum to 147, as I have told the Minister.
I wish to make it clear that I do not blame or charge with responsibility for these break-outs the Governor or officers of the Wetherby open borstal. On the contrary. They deservedly enjoy a high reputation locally, as do most of the trainees who, this being an open borstal, are frequently seen in the locality. They have a good reputation and many of the trainees do useful work and contribute actively and helpfully to a number of local communal and employment needs. Having referred to the officers and staff of the borstal, it may help if I quote from some words used by the local bench of magistrates. This was said in July of last year:
We do not in any way blame the borstal officers … for this deplorable state of affairs",
and they say that they have known those officers to be excellent as a result of magisterial visits which have been paid over many years.
The blame for this spate and growing number of absconders from Wetherby open borstal rests squarely upon the Minister's Department. I think that that charge is best expressed in a statement which the Wetherby bench issued on 3rd July, 1969. It more adequately summarises local views than any words of mine can:
It is our opinion, based upon good evidence, dart borstal accommodation is now quite inadequate to deal with the increasing number of young offenders. As a result, closed borstals are full, and the allocating authorities have no option but to send to open borstals, youths for whom such conditions are quite unsuitable, to the detriment of those who are suitable, and the possible public disrepute of the whole excellent principle of open training for those who can benefit from it. Unless the authorities can provide proper accommodation, the efforts of officers in open borstals will be increasingly difficult, as will the problems facing the courts.
Perhaps I may underline that view by referring to a not dissimilar but briefer statement from the Magistrates' Association in the middle of August, 1969. The Association was reported in the Press as having declared that
lack of facilities for dealing with young offenders was bringing the law into disrepute, and was forcing courts to do less than justice in many cases".
The allegation, therefore, is that responsibility for the number of absconders from Wetherby open borstal rests on the infidequate close borstal facilities and the policy of the Home Office in directing to open borstals those who really are not suitable for them. I believe the charge to be fairly and reasonably levelled at the Department, because a letter which it wrote to the chairman of the Wetherby magistrates admitted in terms, as far as I can see, that there was a genuine national shortage of places in closed borstals.
This is what an under-secretary at the Home Office wrote on 14th August, 1969, at received by the Tadcaster and Wetherby divisions of the local magistracy:
We are well aware of the need for more closed borstal accommodation at the present time, and are trying to find ways of increasing the number of such places available. Unfortunately, this is a slow process beating in mind the conflicting demands of other parts of the penal system for capital expenditure, land, buildings and personnel. Certain increases in existing establishments are planned for the next year or two, but we cannot hope to alter the position to any marked degree in the near future. New building is the only

real solution and there are, of course, longterm plans for this.
I believe that those words frankly admit the difficulty which the Government face: there is a shortage of closed borstal accommodation, and there may be a real danger—indeed, it may actually have happened—that those who are more suitable for closed borstal training in security borstals are being posted to open borstals, particularly to Wetherby borstal.
In the light of the admission in the Home Office letter, which explicity states the need for more closed borstal accommodation, I seek a reassurance from the Minister of State on two questions. First, can she categorically state that at no time in the past, and at no time in the future so far as she can influence it, have there been sent, or will there be sent, to the Wetherby open borstal trainees whose circumstances and character properly require closed or secure borstal training?
I believe that it is unfair to the reputation of the officers of the Wetherby open borstal. It is unfair to the reputation of the borstal itself locally, which is now a high one. It is also unfair to the majority of trainees in open borstals if, surreptitiously, there is introduced into the number of trainees in such a borstal those who properly belong to security borstals. If this has to be done, it is much better that it is done with a quite explicit admission publicly that this is the case because of shortage elsewhere. It is important that we do not have an open borstal surreptitiously sown with the tares of those who properly belong elsewhere. If the Minister cannot give the assurance which I seek, namely, that there will not be any of the wrong type admitted to this borstal, I hope she will admit to the public that they are having to dilute the intake so that the responsibility for the trends and developments at that borstal are clearly seen to belong to the policy of admissions.
The second point about which I seek some general assurance is to ask the hon. Lady to put in hand a review of the methods by which ex-gratia payments are made by the Home Office to compensate local residents for damage which is done to property when absconders break out. It does not need much imagination for the Minister to reflect upon what disruption is likely to be caused, and is caused, locally, when the figure of


absconders is as high as 147 per annum, about one every three days. They are almost bound to break into local houses to get money or, most regularly, to seize private motor cars to dash off north or south along the Great North Road.
It is of considerable interest locally to try to discover exactly what formulae or criteria govern the payment of compensation. I understand from a letter sent by the Home Office to a constituent of mine, Dr. K. Simpson, that in certain circumstances ex-gratia compensation payments may be made without admitting legal liability. However, such payments can be made only where the loss or damage occurs in the immediate neighbourhood of the borstal from which the inmate absconded, and in the case of this constituent the locality was too far removed from the borstal for the ex-gratia criteria to apply.
Another constituent of mine, a Mr. Newis, a builder, had his car parked adjoining the Wetherby open borstal. It was broken into by absconders and driven off. Substantial damage was done to it, but again, for some reason, the criteria, which appear to be remarkably vague, did not apply in his case, although the vehicle was left adjoining a borstal. It would be of great help to the local community if the Minister could say quite clearly what are the criteria for the payment of compensation.
I think I ought to warn the Minister that so far as I can see the writing is on the wall for her Department on this issue of compensation, because she will know of the recent High Court case of Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office in which the plaintiffs brought a case against the Home Office arising from the fact that a number of trainees from an open borstal who were accommodated on a special excursion in a house in the Isle of Wight broke out of that house in the middle of the night, seized a local yacht off the island, and did damage to it amounting to more than £1,000.
In the first hearing of the case it was held, according to The Times Law Report, that
the Home Office, their servants and agents, owed a duty of care to those in the neighbourhood, and that duty was capable of giving rise to a liability in damages.

It was held that there really was a case to answer in the court for damage caused by borstal absconders.
The case went to appeal, and Lord Justice Denning, in ruling that the appeal be accepted and that the plaintiffs lose their action, said:
An action does not lie except on proof of negligence. It is not negligence to keep an open borstal, nor to let the boys have a great deal of freedom. The prison authorities are only negligent if, within that system, they do not take such care and supervision as a reasonable person, operating such a system, would take. It is one of the risks of the system—a conscious and deliberate risk—that boys will sometimes escape and do damage. So the fact that boys escape and do damage is no evidence of negligence. There must be proof of something more.
The Minister will, however, appreciate that the ruling of Lord Justice Denning in rejecting the plaintiffs case on appeal was assuming that an open borstal was what it purported to be, namely, an institution where a deliberate risk was taken with a type of inmate or trainee who was held to be of a different category to the sort of people who would be sent to a security type of borstal.
If the Government, through lack of security borstals, are having to sow the tares of security-qualifying trainees into the wheat of open borstals, I do not think that the Court of Appeal would have found in favour of the Home Office in this way, because it cannot be assumed that people who are properly accommodated in a security borstal can be expected to behave in an open borstal in the way that Lord Justice Denning assumed.
One would go even further nowadays. There is not only the fact that open borstals are, perhaps, being diluted with the wrong sort of people, but I suspect that even the very numbers themselves of those who may be suitable for open borstal training are beginning to have a deleterious effect upon morale and the problems confronting the officers in such borstals.
Perhaps I may quote some words uttered by a governor of whom I have knowledge, mentioning no names. He said:
An open borstal of a certain limited size gives the governor the chance of seeing and influencing personally every boy with great frequency. Once it grows beyond a certain size, this becomes far more difficult.


I believe that the growth, for example, of the Wetherby open borstal from numbers in the region of 80 or 90 in 1959 to something approaching 230 or 240 nowadays entirely alters the character of such a borstal.
To sum up, I am anxious for the Minister, first, to give us categorical assurances that the tares are not being sown amongst the wheat in the Wetherby borstal, and that they will not be and, secondly, that she will appreciate that the question of compensation is a live issue from the point of view of the community when as many as 150, or possibly more, break out in a year, and that the changed character of open borstal, with the increasing number of people and the tendency for the wrong sort of trainee to be sent there, makes it necessary for the Government to revise and put on a more explicit and more generous basis the question of compensation for damage done when trainees break out.

11.43 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Shirley Williams): In thanking the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) for raising this matter, I hope that he will not mind my asking him to forgive me for what will necessarily be a rather abbreviated reply, because I do not have much time left to me.
I would not for one moment underestimate the difficulties that both the prison service and the borstal service face, difficulties which arise partly from the size of the prison population and also from the fact there are many overcrowded and unsuitable buildings.
In responding to the point made by the hon. Member, may I say that it would be a great help to the Home Office if a few local authorities recognised that to bring about better prison and borstal conditions we also need to have additional sites. I make this point because it is not only the Home Office which is one of the reasons why we do not have perhaps as many new prisons as we would like. One of the main difficulties is getting local authorities to support us in pursuing the, I hope, enlightened policy of trying to create new buildings and better conditions.
Having said that, I want briefly to refer to the first part of what the hon. Member said. This relates to the selec-

tion for open borstals of young offenders. Out of 25 borstals which in 1968 served 5,153 young offenders committed to borstals—and these, of course, come from the quarter of the prison population between the ages of 17 and 21—there were 12 open borstals, of which Wetherby was one.
Wetherby is not one of the larger ones. It has 220 places, which brings it very much into the average size of an open borstal. The process of selection is very careful. Every young male offender is sent to one of two borstal allocation centres—if in the South, to Wormwood Scrubs, or, if he is in the North, to the North Borstal Allocation Centre. In this place he spends at least a fortnight or three weeks, in which a very careful assessment is made of his past record, his recent behaviour, his offence, his family background, his likelihood of rehabilitation, his mental abilities, his educability, and so on. Only after this process is he taken either to a closed or an open borstal.
I want to stress two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, neither I nor any other Home Office Minister can give an absolute assurance that no false selection is ever made. He would not expect such an assurance, since the choice is based on human fallibility and judgment.
Secondly, there has been no change of policy in the choice made for open borstals. As the hon. Gentleman asked for evidence of this, whereas, 10 years ago, over half the young offenders allocated to borstal went to open borstals, the figure fell last year to about one third. In other words, we are being very careful in selecting for open borstals. We are not sending anyone accused of serious violence or sexual offences to Wetherby borstal—he can take that assurance for certain—and we are prepared to put up with some overcrowding to fulfil our first duty of protecting the public. That is my assurance to the hon. Gentleman and beyond that he could not reasonably expect me to go.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the damage caused by lads who escape from borstal, but in all fairness I should say that, out of 94 absconds last year from the open borstal, there were only 12 incidents of any kind involving reports to Wetherby police station. Therefore, although in no way excusing this or the


distress which it causes the local community, it is fair to say that many absconds take place without anyone in the neighbourhood of the borstal or in the more extensive area around being affected.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman pointed to some of the work which the inmates of this borstal are doing with the help of the prison staff—work in the social services, with old people and in local hospitals, which has been appreciated by some of his constituents. If there had been time, I would have quoted at least one rather impressive letter from one of his constituents about the work that these boys do.
But perhaps more relevant to the immediate debate is the reorganisation which took place last year in Wetherby. This was the introduction of an induction centre followed by a careful foundation course, then by the normal senior training and then by a release period. It has been interesting that, since this system was introduced in the late summer of 1969 the figure of absconds has fallen impressively. Whereas there were 84 before this system in the first eight months of the year, the figure fell to 25 in the last four months. This means a reduction of approximately 50 per cent. in the rate. If we are right in thinking that this has gone some way to meet what I admit was a disturbing problem, we can look forward to a fall in the rate bearing favourable comparison with the national average.
On ex-gratia payments, the policy of the Home Office has not changed from what it has been for many years. This is a policy of making ex-gratia payments to those who live either in the immediate neighbourhood of a borstal, including in the residences around and in neighbouring villages and, in addition, along recognised escape routes. The hon. Gentleman's constituents who live along the main road from the North will know that this policy extends to them if they

live close to the Borstal. He mentioned one case which I cannot understand and of which I should be grateful for details.
The other case, of Dr. Simpson, was well beyond the normal neighbourhood area. The hon. Member said that the case is standing before the House of Lords, where it has gone on appeal from Lord Justice Denning's decision, and he will not expect me to comment on it in detail. But any case which involves any form of personal violence can be referred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, whether committed by an absconder or by someone committing an offence who is not in custody or who is supposed to be in custody.
No doubt all Ministers in the Home Office, and our predecessors, would like to be able to say that an ex-gratia payment would be paid to anybody injured by an absconder, but the hon. Member will appreciate that there are difficult lines to be drawn. When does an abscond cease to be an abscond and when is someone out of the custody of an institution from which he has escaped? These are difficult questions which cannot be resolved purely by administrative decision. For the time being I can only inform the hon. Member's constituents that those who are at special risk because they live close to a borstal are covered by the ex-gratia payment and that those who live beyond the immediate neighbourhood would not be regarded as at any greater risk than the entire population of the island.
I hope that I have given the hon. Member at least one assurance that he seeks. I appreciate the references which he made to the staff and the governor because they feel strongly, as he does, that links with the local community are a crucial part of the rehabilitation of these young men and they would hate to see that damaged in any way.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.